SureCare Colchester & Braintree

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 69 (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.

The manager shared how they wanted to drive quality and improvement at the service.

Improvements and lessons learned were shared during team meetings and discussions. The service’s electronic call monitoring system offered the option to send out group messages securely for important messages that needed to be shared.

The registered manager and deputy manager were a very present part of the service and personally attended people’s homes to carry out visits and reviews. This ensured people had the opportunity to feedback about the care they liked, any changes needed were implemented and actioned any learning where required.

Managers reviewed all actions taken and visit notes were audited to identify any themes or recurring concerns.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People told us that they felt safe and that they were confident the service would support them with appointments if necessary.

People had hospital passports which enabled people to have a safe and up to date hand over of care when moving between different services.

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.

Staff had up to date training in safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff could also tell us how they put these principles into practise effectively. One staff member told us “I always try to protect vulnerable people and the treatment they need. I always support what decisions they make and would support with best interest decisions that are least restrictive but always promote them to make their own decisions”.

Staff were confident to report concerns when they arose. Staff were able to tell us what situations would amount to a safeguarding and the steps they would take. We saw an example of how the service have appropriately raised concerns to protect people.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were completed for falls, medication and the external environment. There were also other risk assessments that the service would complete based on a person’s assessed needs. People told us they had regular reviews and were assessed when they started with the service. People had a copy of their care plans.

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

Risk assessments in care records included practical information, for example, locations of water and electricity supplies, and smoke alarms. This information was checked by staff regularly. Any concerns were shared with the relevant persons.

Staff ensured people were wearing lifelines call bells where available and assessed as part of their care plans for keeping safe. These enable people to press a button to call for help if they are alone and in need.

We identified shortfalls in the provider’s recruitment practices. The service had not consistently obtained more than one reference for newly recruited staff.

We shared this feedback with the provider. They took immediate action, providing evidence of corrective measures and a clear plan setting out how they will ensure compliance with best practice expectations going forward.

The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff with the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience to meet people’s needs safely. Staff received regular supervision, appraisal and competency assessments, which supported the delivery of safe care and promoted ongoing professional development. Staff worked collaboratively and demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s individual needs.

People told us they received support from a small and consistent care team who knew them well. One person said, “Yes, I have regular carers, so I feel comfortable with the people coming.” All people we spoke with confirmed staff arrived on time and stayed for the full duration of their visit unless they themselves asked them to leave earlier.

Staff received regular supervisions, appraisals and spot checks. These allowed staff to reflect on their practice, discuss progress made against previous objectives and raise any concerns. Staff had access to ongoing training, and managers completed competency checks to ensure staff followed best practice guidance.

Staff reported they felt comfortable approaching management about any issues, including personal matters, and described the provider as supportive and approachable.

Recruitment records showed that, aside from the issue regarding references, staff were generally recruited safely. Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had been completed, and appropriate induction processes were in place. For longer standing staff, DBS checks were renewed at suitable intervals. ‑standing staff, DBS checks were renewed at suitable intervals.

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.

People told us staff wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), including gloves, aprons and during winter months, face masks if a person would prefer.

The service had an infection control policy in place. Staff received the appropriate training around infection control.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safely managed and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

During our assessment we noted that people’s medication EMARs did not reflect the prescribers label instructions, including any information about the timing/appropriate gaps in time of administration. This did not follow best practice guidelines which ensure safety, accuracy and compliance. We provided feedback to the provider regarding medication labels not being in place. They took immediate action and sent assurances of these having now been updated and completed.

Despite this staff involved people in planning, including when changes with their medications were needed the service had systems in place to support safe administration of medicines such as regular monthly auditing, electronic medication administration records (EMARs) and systems that mean an alert is sent if medication is not administer as per the schedule. Staff followed administration procedures for administering medication and documented this appropriately.

People told us they felt medication was dispensed safely.