Gentle Folk Community Care

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 75 (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 effective systems and open, reflective culture in place supported this approach and had been successful in driving improvements in the service. The provider demonstrated they were responsive and open to feedback and we saw examples of where they had taken action to address shortfalls because of feedback. Staff confirmed this approach was an important factor within the culture with one telling us, “We all want to invest in Gentle Folk and support our local community. We pride ourselves in this. We can reflect where mistakes have been made and what must be done to improve this.”

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. One health and social care professional who provided us with feedback spoke of how flexible the service was in meeting people’s needs and ensuring care was continuous and appropriate. They said, “[Staff member] always answers the telephone with the same professionalism and desire to support me and [people who used the service] as much as they can. Although some of these situations are urgent, they remain professional to ensure they can meet the care and support needs before taking the person. This is imperative as there have been certain people who require a different approach.”

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 with the appropriate authorities. The records we viewed confirmed this approach and staff demonstrated they understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and protecting people from the risk of abuse and improper treatment. Effective systems had been established to help protect people and this included ensuring staff received training in safeguarding.

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. The people who used the service, and their relatives, told us this. One relative explained how staff safely used a piece of moving and handling equipment and said, “I certainly think [relative] is safe. Staff attend to detail and understand [relative’s] needs. They know what is going on and share information.” The records we viewed confirmed the risks to people, and the provider’s staff, had been identified, mitigated and reviewed.

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 provider had risk assessed people’s homes to ensure people and staff remained safe whilst providing care. This included in relation to the home’s environment and outside space as well as to fire and other aspects such as people’s pets or whether people within the property smoked.

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.

Prior to our inspection, other stakeholders had identified shortfalls in relation to how the provider completed recruitment checks for staff. The feedback given had been acted upon by the provider and we saw that improvements had been made and shortfalls were no longer evident. Records showed that staff received training and support to perform their roles and the people who used the service, and their relatives, told us staff had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Staff confirmed they received the support they needed with one telling us, “Induction and shadow shifts prepared me for my role, and I continue to receive helpful supervisions and appraisals that provide constructive feedback.”

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, and their relatives, told us staff were diligent in managing the risks associated with infections. One relative said, “I’ve seen the staff use gloves. They clean and wipe surfaces down and they use antiseptic wipes. The bathroom and toilet are clean.” The provider had processes in place to help manage the risks associated with infectious diseases including a policy and ensuring staff received training in the topic.

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. We saw from the records we viewed that staff had received training in medicines management and that people received their medicines as prescribed; the people we spoke with confirmed this. One relative told us, “The staff give [relative] medicines from a locked cupboard… There’s been no missed doses.” Where medicine errors had occurred, the provider had taken appropriate action to mitigate future risk of reoccurrence.