Fastrack Resources Limited

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

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.

This service scored 50 (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 systems and processes for staff to report accidents and incidents. Accidents and incidents were recorded, including the lessons learned. This meant the provider and staff could see what action needed to be taken to improve the service and mitigate the risk of similar incidents.

There was no information recorded or plans in place for how person-centred information about each service user would be shared between the service and healthcare professionals should a service user need to access healthcare services.

The provider’s own ‘Admissions and New Service User Policy’ stated the service should carry out a monthly review for the first three months, then at least quarterly, for all service users. However, there was no evidence reviews had been carried out in accordance with their own policy. There was also no evidence the provider had worked with the other social care providers involved in some people’s care to provide timely and robust care planning to ensure the health, safety and welfare of those people.

These issues put some people at risk of potential harm.

The provider had a safeguarding policy and procedures in place and staff had received safeguarding training. However, not all staff safeguarding training was up to date, and some staff members’ knowledge and understanding of how to identify safeguarding concerns required improvement. Some staff members’ knowledge and understanding of whistleblowing (raising concerns outside of the service) also required improvement.

People and their relatives said they felt safe with their carers and the service overall.

A person told us, “Yes, I`m safe, we get on well. I look forward to the carer coming”. A person’s relative said, “[He/she] does get scared over the slightest thing but is definitely safe with the carers”. Another person’s relative told us, “[He/she] is very safe, [he/she] lights up when the carer comes”.

The provider had not completed risk assessments for all people. The risks the provider was aware of were not sufficiently documented, for example, they were not detailed and did not include sufficient instructions for staff about how to manage the risks safely.

The provider had failed to carry out a risk assessment for a person’s Parkinson’s disease and their mobility requirements. The provider also had not carried out a risk assessment for a person’s mobility needs when they experienced acute pain. In addition, the provider had not carried out a risk assessment for a person’s falls.

These issues put some people at risk of potential harm.

The provider risk assessed people’s homes to support the delivery of safe care.

Staff training was not up to date. The provider’s staff training record stated training should be refreshed annually. However, the training record showed some staff training had not been refreshed for over 1 year, and in some cases, even longer. Staff had not done Parkinson’s awareness training, even though a person the service supported lived with Parkinson’s disease. Staff had not completed learning disability and autism training. Since 2022 it has been a legal requirement for all health and social care staff to complete learning disability and autism training, regardless of whether the service supports people with a learning disability and/or autism.

The provider’s staff supervision record showed staff had not received supervision regularly. There was no evidence the provider had assessed all staff members’ understanding and competency when they had completed training.The provider employed 3 care staff and had only carried out spot-checks for 1 member of care staff to assess their knowledge, competency and skills.

These issues meant the provider had not ensured all staff were always suitably qualified, competent and skilled.

People and their relatives said they felt the staff were trained. One person told us, “[The carer] seems well trained and knowledgeable”. A person’s relative said, “[The carer] is very capable. [He/she] would deal with any emergency. I have total faith in [his/her] capabilities”.

The provider had not followed safer recruitment processes. The provider’s own ‘Recruitment and Selection Policy’ stated they should obtain two written references, including one from the most recent employer, a full employment history and a completed health declaration form for all staff. However, the provider had not always obtained 2 suitable references for all staff, had not recorded the reasons for gaps in staff members’ employment histories and did not have a completed health declaration form for all employees.

The provider had also not always carried out a new DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) check for all staff and had not always obtained a DBS certificate before a member of staff started working for the service. A DBS check helps employers make safer recruitment decisions by checking a person’s criminal record to decide if they are suitable for a job, especially those involving children or vulnerable adults.

In addition, the provider’s recruitment policy was not up to date, as it referenced CQC processes that are no longer in use.

These issues meant the provider could not be assured that all staff were of good character, had the competence and skills required and were able to properly perform their tasks, before they started working for the service.

Staff had received infection prevention and control training and used and disposed of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) appropriately. Staff reported they always had a good supply of PPE.

A person told us, “[The carer] washes [his/her] hands, wears gloves and uses the hand sanitizer”. A person’s relative said, “They [the carers] wear gloves and aprons and dispose of them when finished with them. They always leave the home clean and tidy”. Another person’s relative told us, “[The carer] always washes [his/her] hands when [he/she] comes in and wears gloves and an apron”.

Staff had received medicines training. However, not all staff medicines training was up to date. In addition, not all people’s care records included information about the purpose of each medicine, the possible side effects of the medicines or instructions for staff about what action to take in the event of a person’s adverse reaction to their medicines.

The provider had systems and processes in place for the management of medicines, and people’s ‘when required’ medicine protocols contained appropriately detailed information and instructions for staff. People had received their medicines as prescribed without error.

When people managed their own medicines, staff reminded and prompted them to take their medicines. A person told us, “I do my medicines and [the carer] gently reminds me, as I can be forgetful”. A relative said, “They prompt [him/her] with their medicines” and “I am very happy with the service and the fact they encourage [him/her] to take their medicines”.