Independent Support & 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.

Systems were in place for learning lessons when things went wrong. For example, the provider had policies in place covering accidents and incidents, complaints, whistleblowing and safeguarding. These provided guidance about how to respond if necessary. The registered manager told us there had not been any safeguarding allegations, whistleblowing or significant accidents and incidents in the past 12 months. They also said there had not been any formal complaints, but there had been some informal complaints received from people. We saw these had been recorded and responded to in a way so that lessons would be learnt for the future.

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.

Before people started using the service, the provider worked with the person and their relatives to ensure there was a safe and smooth transition of care. The registered manager met with the person to carry out an assessment of their needs, which included input from the person themselves. Assessments covered needs including the person’s mental capacity, mobility and their health and wellbeing.

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 registered manager told us there had not been any safeguarding allegations in the past 12 months. Nonetheless, there were systems in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse. There was a safeguarding adults policy which made clear the provider’s responsibility to report any allegations of abuse to the local authority. Staff had undertaken safeguarding training. They understood the different types of abuse and their responsibility to report suspected abuse. One member of staff told us, “I would raise a [safeguarding] concern with my manager, and if no action was taken, with the local authority.”

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 provider worked with people to develop risk assessments. However, for 1 person we found a significant risk assessment was not in place. The pre-care assessment had identified that there was a risk of falls due to their limited mobility [although the person had not had a fall]. There was no follow up risk assessment about falls. We discussed this with the registered manager who then developed a risk assessment shortly after our visit.

Risk assessments covered the risks people faced and included information about how to mitigate those risks. They covered risks including fire, infection prevention and dementia. Staff understood the risks people faced and how to support them safely. People told us they felt safe using the service. A relative said, “Yes I feel completely safe when the carer is there.”

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 supported people who lived in their own homes. As such, the provider was not responsible for the maintenance of people’s property or possessions. Nevertheless, they had caried out environmental risk assessments to help ensure the environment was safe for staff to work in. Assessments covered areas such trip hazards, fire and infection prevention and control.

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 in a way that was safe. The registered manager told us there had not been any missed visits in the past 12 months and that staff punctuality was good. They monitored this through speaking with people who used the service and spot checks. They added that in future they planned to introduce an electronic system for monitoring staff punctuality which would be helpful if the service grew. People told us staff were punctual. One person said, “They [staff] are good, they turn up on time. They stay for the full amount of time.”

The provider carried out checks on prospective staff to verify if they were suitable to work in a care setting. These included employment references, proof of identification and criminal record checks.

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.

There were systems in place to help prevent the spread of infection. Staff were expected to wear personal protective equipment [PPE] when providing support with personal care. Staff confirmed that they did indeed wear PPE. Staff had also undertaken training about infection control. In addition, the provider had a policy on infection prevention and control to help guide good practice in this area.

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.

The provider had taken steps to help ensure that support with medicines was done safely. Medicine administration records were maintained. These included the details of medicines to be given. Staff signed them after each administration so there was a clear audit trail. Staff undertook training about the safe administration of medicines and their competency was assessed in this area. The provider had a policy that covered medicines administration which helped to guide staff practice in this area.