Flexy Care - Main Office

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Whilst there had been no incidents since the provider’s registration, the registered manager was able to describe the provider’s accident and incident protocols and processes for staff to report accidents, incidents and near misses. The registered manager explained they would review all incidents and take any preventative action and ensure changes to people’s care needs would be shared with staff. Staff confirmed they would promptly report any incidents to the registered manager. To support the oversight of incidents, the provider maintained an accident and incident log. We were satisfied the service was compliant in this area.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not always manage or monitor people’s safety. They did not always make sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Prior to the start of people’s care provision, the registered manager met and assessed their care and support requirements to ensure the service could meet their needs. They worked with people’s families, health professionals and other care providers to fully understand people’s needs and to clarify their shared role. However, these shared working agreements had not been recorded or made explicitly clear in people’s care records. This put people at risk of harm as staff did not have clear guidance on their role and responsibilities when jointly working with other care providers. This was raised with the registered manager who took immediate action to address our concerns.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

There had been no safeguarding concerns since the provider’s registration, People’s relatives raised no concerns about people’s safety. The registered manager was the designated safeguarding lead and was clear about their safeguarding role and responsibilities. Staff confirmed they had access to the provider’s safeguarding policy and had received training in safeguarding. They understood the importance of raising any safeguarding concerns. One staff member explained the actions they would take if they witnessed poor practices. We were satisfied the service was compliant in this area.

The registered manager agreed to arrange children’s safeguarding training for staff to promote and monitor the welfare of children who they may encounter when providing homecare.

The provider had not fully ensured there was a shared understanding of staff’s role and responsibilities when sharing the responsibility of people’s care and risks. People’s care records included risk assessments and management plans; however, they did not fully describe people’s risk management plans and any shared responsibilities with other care providers to mitigate their risks. This meant the provider could not fully evidence that people’s risks were being managed in a person-centred and collaborative way.

Staff understood how to support people and manage their risks. They described the actions they took to keep people safe and to de-escalate situations when people became distressed. One staff member said, “If I saw [name of service user] was unwell or changes in health, I would report it immediately to my manager.” People’s relatives felt their family member was well cared for and that the service had improved people’s quality of life.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The service assessed potential risks relating to people’s environment, such as fire safety and first aid. Staff had received training in health and safety, fire safety and moving and handling. Policies relating to people’s and environmental risks referenced relevant legislation and was in line with best practice.

The provider had not always ensured safe recruitment practices had been consistently used. The registered manager had discussed staff’s employment histories with new staff but had not consistently recorded their findings to demonstrate staff were of good conduct. However, the registered manager worked closely with staff to check their conduct and practices.

Staff had received training in key subjects relevant to their role. Whilst staff did not support people with a learning disability, the provider had not ensured staff had received training in how to interact appropriately with people with a learning disability and autistic people, at a level appropriate to their role.

Our concerns about staff recruitment records and staff’s learning disability training was raised with the registered manager who took immediate action to address our concerns.

Staff told us they felt supported and received regular support and supervision from the registered manager. One staff member said, “I receive supervisions meetings with [name of registered manager] – always very approachable, listens to my concerns and always phones me back if I need some support.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff understood how to prevent and control the spread of infection. They had access to the provider’s infection control policies and were knowledgeable about safe infection prevention practices. They told us they had access and used personal protective equipment (PPE) and had been trained in Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) and food safety.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

At the time of our assessment, people were not receiving support with the administration or management of their medicines. However, following our review of the provider’s information return, the provider’s policies, procedures and discussions with the registered manager and staff, we were satisfied the service was compliant in this area.