Flawless Care Services Ltd - Vale House

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 newly registered 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. Accidents and incidents were analysed to ascertain what happened and what could change to prevent future incidents. The accident monitoring log had a lessons learned section which was also discussed with staff, so they understood how to make changes to improve practice.

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. Care plans and risk assessments were kept up to date and reviewed regularly to ensure up to date information was passed on to other professionals and services as required. We saw email communications which had taken place between external professionals and the management team. These included conversations with occupational therapists, hospital discharge teams and district nurses.

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. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Staff received training and knew how to recognise and report abuse. The provider had appropriate policies and processes in place which ensured any safety concerns were reported to the local authority. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and followed the provider’s procedures. One staff member said, “I would immediately report to my line manager if I suspected abuse and I believe the appropriate actions will be taken by our management team. If feel the right actions are not taken, I will escalate to the local council or CQC.”

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were understood by the registered manager and there were processes in place to review people’s capacity in line with the MCA.The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Risks associated with people's care were identified and predominantly managed to keep people safe. However, some risk assessments required further information to ensure staff had access to important information to be able to deliver care safely. For example, 1 person, who required the use of a hoist to mobilise, did not have details about the size and type of sling and loop configuration to be used. Some care planning documentation did not always include sufficient details. For example, 1 person’s care plan stated they required regular repositioning but did not state how often this should take place. This person also required the use of pressure relieving aids but was not specific about what these aids were. We raised these concerns with the management team who took immediate action to resolve them. Staff were knowledgeable about risks. One staff member said, "I follow the care plans and risk assessments for each person. If someone’s health or mobility changes, I report it so the plan can be reviewed. I make sure the environment is safe, use the right PPE, and follow infection control and medication procedures to reduce risks." Relatives were confident their family member was safe while using the service. One relative said, “People [staff] will come in and check on [family member], check their weight and everything. I have no worries about [family member].”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Risk assessments were completed regarding people's properties and any risks identified in the care environment.

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. Staff received training and support to carry out their tole effectively. One staff member said, “I’ve had full moving and handling training. I know how to use hoists, slings, wheelchairs, and other equipment safely. I was shown how to check and use them properly, and my skills were checked before working on my own. I also do refresher training to stay up to date.” The provider had a recruitment procedure to ensure staff recruited were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff received a thorough induction when they commenced their role and completed shadow shifts with experienced staff. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and received 1 to 1 sessions to discuss their practice. Staff told us they had enough time to carry out their role and felt the management team listened to any concerns. One staff member said, “My rota is well organised, which helps me give people the time and care they need. If someone’s needs increase or we’re short on staff, I let my care coordinator know, and they arrange extra cover or support.”

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. Safe infection control practices are encouraged and staff understood safe practices. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE). One staff member said, “I use appropriate PPE, follow infection control protocols and report any concerns to my line manager.”

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. Risk assessments were in place when any medication risks were presented. One person had a risk identified as they sometimes refused to take their medicines. Staff read and followed care plans and risk assessments and followed the medication profile and MAR charts. They were aware of basic first aid techniques and attended annual medication training. If there were any concerns, they knew to seek medical advice immediately, report any changes to the office and complete an incident report. One staff member said, “Yes, I’ve been trained in medication management, including how to administer, record, and store medicines safely. I also understand the importance of consent and double-checking before giving medication. After training my skills are checked through demonstrations to make sure, I’ve understood everything. I am only assigned tasks after I’ve been signed off as competent.”