Jessy 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 registered manager reviewed all safeguarding, accident and incident records to identify any responsive action required. Any lessons learned were shared with the team and discussed in staff meetings where appropriate.

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, and their relatives where appropriate, were involved in planning their care before support began. They were given clear information about the service, including what support would be provided and any relevant agreements. This helped people make informed choices and ensure a smooth start to their care. Staff worked with relevant partners if people were transitioning from another service.

The provider made sure key information was available to pass on to hospital staff, should this be needed in an emergency. They used the national GP Connect service to securely connect and share data with people’s GP practices.

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.

The provider had a safeguarding policy and staff received training in this area. Staff were aware of signs of potential abuse, and how to report any concerns. They were confident management would deal with any issues appropriately. The registered manager kept a record of any safeguarding concerns and action taken to ensure people’s safety and wellbeing.

Staff received training related to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA); they respected people’s decisions and promoted their human rights.

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 in place, covering areas such as moving and handling, nutrition and hydration, skin integrity risks and any individual health conditions. People were involved in the development of plans to help manage any identified risks. This information was readily available to staff. People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them. One person told us how well staff supported them with a specific health risk and commented, “They know what to do. They are very good, they never panic.”

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 completed an environmental risk assessment to consider and manage any potential risks to people or staff from working in each person’s home. This included factors such as security, accessibility and equipment. Assessments were routinely reviewed.

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.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed and the provider completed appropriate pre-employment checks. Staff completed training and shadowed experienced staff before working on their own. The provider also completed competency checks and spot checks of practice. One staff member was overdue their competence checks, but the registered manager told us they would complete this. Staff were satisfied with the induction, training and supervision they received. One told us, “I feel confident with the training I’ve had, and I know that if I asked for more training there would never be a problem with that. They’d be very happy to provide us with any extra training we felt we needed.”

The registered manager had a system to schedule care visits and staff told us they had sufficient time to get to each visit.

People and relatives told us the service was reliable and carers usually arrived on time. One relative commented, “I could set my clock by them.” One relative told us the care staff were “very competent” and another said, “They are flexible, have good practical skills and good communication.”

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.

Staff completed training related to infection prevention and control and followed the policies and procedures in place. Staff confirmed they had access to sufficient personal protective equipment.

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. However, some improvement was needed with aspects of medicines record keeping.

Information was available in each person’s care plan about any support they required with their medicines, but more instruction was needed about when to give medicines prescribed for use ‘as and when required’ and variable dose medicines. We also noted a minor issue with the consistency of codes used on some administration records. The registered manager agreed to address these issues.

Medicines were given in line with people’s prescription and staff recorded on the provider’s electronic system when they had assisted someone with their medicine. Staff received training and periodic competence checks to check their skills. People and relatives confirmed they were satisfied with the support received in relation to medicines and prescribed creams.