Time2Care (BSE) Ltd

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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. Incidents and events were viewed positively as opportunities for learning and improvement. This fostered a culture in which staff consistently reported concerns. Learning outcomes were routinely shared with the wider staff team, promoting continuous improvement and ensuring safe practice was maintained.

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. Information relating to people’s care needs was assessed prior to them joining the service. This helped to inform the development of person-centred care plans and risk assessments. People were also supported through hospital admissions and discharges, helping to ensure continuity of care and that their changing needs were appropriately identified and met.

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.

People told us they felt safe receiving a service from the provider and also confirmed they knew how to raise complaints or concerns. One person said, “I feel safe in their care because they are trained to do the job.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and responsibilities. They had completed relevant safeguarding training and were able to explain the processes for recognising, responding to, and reporting concerns appropriately. One staff member told us, “I did my safeguarding training as part of my induction and do refreshers annually. The management keep us updated on a weekly basis publishing policy updates if there are any changes.” Another staff member told us, “If I had a safeguarding concern, I would ensure the person was safe, and report the concern immediately to my manager, record exactly what I have seen or been told using factual information, following our company's safeguarding policy. If I believed someone was in immediate danger I would call the emergency services, I would not try and investigate myself or make a promise to keep it secret. I cannot think of any examples of this whilst I have been working.”

The provider had a range of relevant policies and procedures in place, including a safeguarding adult’s policy and a whistleblowing policy, to support staff in raising and reporting concerns. Staff were aware of these processes and described a positive culture where they felt encouraged to speak up. One staff member told us, “We have always been encouraged to speak up if there are ever any problems or worries and always listened to.” This demonstrated that staff felt able to raise concerns without fear of repercussions and were confident that these would be taken seriously and acted upon. As a result, potential safeguarding issues could be identified and addressed promptly, helping to protect people from harm and promote their safety and well-being.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Whilst they provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe,supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them, this was not always fully documented in the records. For example, some risk assessments and care plans were generic and lacked sufficient detail in relation to people’s specific conditions such as diabetes or other specific healthcare conditions to show potential risk factors and how this was being mitigated.

We found no evidence of impact on people using the service, as management and staff were knowledgeable about people’s specific care needs. The provider acknowledged that there was room for improvement in the care records and were receptive to our feedback. They confirmed they would review and make improvements to the risk assessment process.

The provider assessed people’s home environments to identify potential risks. Where risks were identified, the leadership team worked with people and their families to discuss concerns and develop plans to reduce or manage those risks.

The provider had carried out environmental assessments which involved risk assessments relating to the environment which covered things such as slip and trip and hazards, electrical appliances, and gas appliances, to ensure support was provided in a safe way.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. A staff member told us, “In my opinion, there is enough staff to cover calls. Calls always seem to be fully covered. If anyone is off work for any reason we all work well together and cover where we can and work well as a team. I have never known a call to be missed.”

Staffing levels and skill mix were carefully considered to make sure people received consistently safe,good qualitycare that met their needs.People and relatives explained how they had a regular team of care staff thatcame,stayed the fullvisit duration,and they knew who to expect.

People told us they were happy with the staff who visited them. One person told us, “Staff are generally punctual and would let me know if they are running late. I have the same core group of carers, and I have never had any concerns about safety with any of the staff who come to me. Each week I receive through the post a list of staff who will be coming.” Another person commented, “Their timekeeping is pretty good, and staff stay for allocated time and sometimes over. I usually get a phone call if staff are going to be quite late.”

A relative told us, “[Family member] has a core group of staff who attend, their timekeeping is good and staff stayed for the allocated time. If they are running late, they telephone and let [family member] know. If one of the regular staff are off, they will let [family member] know that someone else is coming.”

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 were protected from the risk of avoidable infections because the service had effective infection prevention and control (IPC) measures in place. Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), including gloves and aprons, and there were sufficient supplies available to ensure these could be used whenever required.

Staff received training in infection prevention and control and demonstrated a good understanding of safe hygiene practices. They followed established procedures designed to minimise the risk of cross-contamination and the spread of infection within the service.

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.

Medicine administration records were maintained on an electronic system, which allowed information to be updated promptly whenever changes to prescriptions or support arrangements were made. The system provided automated alerts to management when medicines had not been administered as scheduled or when records indicated a delay. This enabled timely follow-up and appropriate action to be taken, helping to maintain safe practice and improve compliance.

Care plans accurately reflected each person’s individual needs and clearly outlined the level of support required with medicine management. This ensured staff had clear guidance and were able to provide support consistently and safely. People told us they were confident that their medicines were administered as prescribed and on time, and medication records confirmed this was the case.

Staff told us they had receivedappropriate trainingand had their competency to administer medication regularly checked by the management team.One member of staff shared,“Medication competency is completed prior to care staff being allowed in a [person’s] home, it is completed online and we are witnessed through shadow shifts.”