SSG Care Services 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

Incidents and accidents were reviewed, and trends and themes were identified so staff could learn from these. Actions were taken following incidents to reduce the risk of further incidents. Learning was shared in meetings with staff.

Staff told us, “SSG Care Services has a strong learning culture where incidents, feedback and audits are used to improve practice”. Staff felt confident to report concerns in an open, no-blame environment. For example, following a person's fall, staff acted promptly to ensure safety and report the incident. A full review was completed, leading to updates in the risk assessment and care plan, reinforcement of safe moving and handling and removal of environmental hazards. Family members were informed and involved and additional monitoring was introduced. This resulted in improved safety and care delivery. Learning from the incident was shared across the team to support early risk identification and prevention.”

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.

The service supported people to transition safely into other services, such as hospital. The manager told us how they had sought medical advice for one person during their scheduled care visit and later called to find out what was happening. The manager explained the person was being admitted to hospital, and the nominated individual [NI] went to the person’s home to support this transition.

The service used ‘hospital passports’ to further support with these transitions, which contained key information about people’s needs, medical history, likes and dislikes. Staff knew about these and how to access them.

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 told us they felt safe and raised no concerns. Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood the signs of abuse to look out for. The manager was the designated safeguarding lead and had completed a higher level of training in safeguarding. There was a clear policy and procedure which was displayed in the services registered office.

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.

Staff had identified risks people faced and there were clear mitigations recorded within their care plans. Relatives spoke positively about how risks were well managed. One relative commented, “Staff manage risks safely, they are very capable.”

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 assessed potential risks relating to people’s environment, such as trip hazards and furniture arrangements. Staff had received training in health and safety, fire safety and moving and handling. There was a health and safety policy and procedure, which referenced relevant legislation and was in line with best practice.

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 had been recruited safely and had received a range of training suitable to people’s needs. Staff felt the training equipped them to carry out their roles effectively. Relatives commented that staff arrived on time and stayed for the full duration of the visit. At times, staff stayed longer than the allocated times if this was needed. The manager told us, “Sometimes the calls might go over, agreed call time is 1.5 hours, sometimes it is a rush. I can go over and beyond.”

There was an on-call system so staff could access support outside of office hours. The service had a contingency plan for staff shortages which included support from another care provider and an agency.

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.

Relatives told us staff supported people to keep their homes clean. One relative commented, “They leave my kitchen immaculate, and they keep everything clean and tidy.” Staff had received training in infection prevention and control [IPC] and had access to personal protective equipment.

There was a policy which outlined procedures staff should follow to ensure they remained compliant.

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.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff recorded where they had prompted people to take their medicines and where they had applied topical creams on a Medication Administration Record [MAR] chart.

People had ‘when required’ [PRN] protocols which were detailed and guided staff when to apply certain creams. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines.