Amazingly Care 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had received one complaint from a person in receipt of care where a member of staff had been difficult to contact and were on their personal phone when accompanying the person in the community. The registered manager immediately took action to address the poor practice and replace the carer to someone the person felt comfortable with. The registered manager also increased quality checks to ensure staff were behaving in a person-centred way.

The provider had not always incorporated information about how to manage and monitor peoples identified health conditions in care plans. This could affect continuity of care, if people needed moved between different services.

People who had identified health conditions that might require additional support from external health professionals due to deterioration over time, and or, mobility equipment that might need maintenance, did not have care plans that identified what staff should look for, or who they should contact.

The risk to people was mitigated as those in receipt of care lived with families or live in carers who took responsibly for additional care provision. The provider told us they would review care

plans to ensure additional information would be included.

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. No safeguarding's had been recorded or reported at the time of inspection. All staff had received the appropriate level of safeguarding training. Staff were able to tell us the signs of abuse and how they would report these. One said, “I would report any signs of abuse to my manager and failing that the local authority and CQC.” Another said, “I feel I would be listened to if I raised concerns.”

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.

Peoples care plans identified how they wished to be supported in managing their everyday needs, including how to promote people’s independence. One person’s care plan informed staff the person would tell them how to support them to use the shower. However, as the person used a stool, instructions could be improved to include more detail of the support the person needed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Peoples care plans identified when activities might be hindered by environmental risks. This included ensuring there were no trip hazards, and lighting was appropriate to carry out identified tasks. People at risk of falling had care plans that instructed staff on how they could mitigate this risk when providing care.

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.

The provider had ensured all staff had undergone required recruitment safety checks. Staff had undertaken a robust induction over a 6-week period including shadowing experienced staff, observations in practice and the nationally recognised care certificate.

Staff had completed mandatory training including how to support autistic people and people with a learning disability and supporting people living with dementia.

However, where a person was living with a condition not covered by the mandatory training, staff had not undertaken additional training. For example, how to support people living with Parkinson’s disease. The provider told us this was in part because live in carers or family members provided staff with this information when needed, but they would ensure staff received additional training related to people’s conditions as their care packages increased.

The provider was able to demonstrate they were in frequent contact with local authority offers of free training support for staff to enhance staff skills and drive-up quality of care.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and knew how to share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff had access to protective equipment such as aprons and gloves. Peoples care plans gave clear instructions on good infection control practice. This included when and how equipment should be cleaned. All staff had received infection, prevention and control training. People told us staff always appeared prepared and wore protective equipment when supporting them.

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.

People in receipt of care at the time of inspection were either independent with medications or supported by family and live in carers with taking medications. However, some people required support with applying prescribed creams and clear instructions for supporting this was in place within care plans. Staff used an electronic system to record care provided, including medicine administrated. If a medicine had not been confirmed as given, this alerted the manager who then contacted the member of staff to confirm whether administration had occurred.

Staff had received medicines training, and the registered manager told us should they support people requiring medication support in the future, training and competency checks and observations would be revisited. Policies and procedures were in place for safe medicines management.