Carpenders Care 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

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 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.

A system was in place to report, record and monitor incidents and to help support people safely. Accident/incident forms detailed the action taken following an accident/incident but there was a lack of detail around lessons learnt. We raised this with the registered manager who said that they would amend the form to include this and in future this would be documented.

Management discussed accidents/incidents with staff during meetings in order to help ensure staff were familiar with their responsibilities and what action to take in such an event.

Staff were able to raise concerns outside of the management team to help prevent the development of a closed culture.

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.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service to ensure the service was able to meet them. People and their relatives were involved in the assessment process so that their views and wishes were taken into account when planning their care and support.

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.

Procedures were in place to help safeguard people from abuse and improper treatment. Staff were able to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and received training to help ensure they were up to date with best practice guidance. Staff said they would report concerns and wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

The registered manager told us there had not been any allegations of abuse in the past 12 months, and we saw no evidence to contradict this.

People told us they were confident they were safe in the presence of care staff and were well looked after. When asked if they felt safe, a person said, “Yes, [care staff] help me with things that I need.” Another person said, “[Care staff] are very efficient and pleasant.” Relatives said their family members received care and support in a safe way. A relative said, “[My family member] has a good relationship with [care staff]. [Care staff] look after [my family member] so well and engage with them according to their needs. [Care staff] are always polite and responsive.”

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.

Systems to help identify, assess and plan for risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were in place. Risk assessments were person centred. Assessments covered risks including the environment and individual health conditions. They included details of control measures to help mitigate risk and protect people.

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 service was a domiciliary care agency that supported people who lived in their own homes. The provider did not have responsibility for the safe maintenance of the property or the equipment used. However, the provider had carried out environmental and risk assessments of people’s homes to help 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.

There were enough staff to support people. The provider used an electronic homecare monitoring system to plan and monitor care visits. Staff logged in and out of every visit electronically, so the provider was able to monitor that staff were punctual and stayed the full amount of time required. People and relatives told us staff arrived on time and stayed for the length of time agreed and carried out tasks as agreed.

Records showed that staff had received training in areas relevant to their roles. Staff received consistent supervision sessions and on-site spot checks. This enabled management to monitor and discuss care staff’s role, performance and development.

Policies and procedures were in place to help recruit staff safely. Checks on the suitability of potential staff were completed. These included obtaining references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and help prevent unsuitable people from working in care services.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and were aware of the procedures to follow if any concerns had to be shared.

Staff followed infection control processes, including washing their hands, keeping people’s home’s clean and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) where appropriate.

Staff had completed training about infection prevention and control. Staff said they had enough PPE.

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.

Medicines administration was recorded electronically on the care planning system. We looked at a sample of Medicines Administration Records (MARs) and found these were completed fully indicating medicines were administered as prescribed.

Where people were prescribed medicines on a when required basis (PRN), protocols were in place. However, we found that some of these lacked detailed instructions for staff on when to administer the medicines. We raised this with the registered manager who advised that they would review this and ensure detailed protocols were in place as appropriate.

People's medicine support needs were clearly documented in their care plans.

Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines.