Brookmead Health and Social Care Solutions Private 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

Not rated.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this key question.

We have not awarded this service a score for Safe.

We have not awarded this service a score for Safe.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Safe.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

At the time of our assessment no accidents or incidents had been reported. There was an accident and incident log in place, and the registered manager was able to explain the actions they would take, which included investigating to identify any required actions and considering whether any lessons could be learned.

Processes were in place to log incidents and accidents, however there was a lack of evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of these processes in practice. We found there was no structured approach to developing action plans following an accident/ incident to ensure timely action is taken in response including identifying trends and learning to prevent reoccurrence and drive improvements.

The provider worked with people 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’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving care, with assessments covering a range of care needs in detail. This supported the registered manager in identifying the care and support required to keep people safe.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They did not always concentrate on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

There had been no safeguarding concerns raised. A safeguarding process and log were in place, and the registered manager demonstrated awareness of escalation pathways should concerns arise. However, there were no clear processes in place to monitor safeguarding activity or provide oversight. This meant the registered provider could not demonstrate how they would identify patterns, review themes, or ensure learning was embedded to reduce the risk of harm.

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.

Care plans included detailed guidance on how to support people in reducing risks. The people receiving care, along with their relatives, were actively involved in planning and decision-making.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Personalised environmental risk assessments were in place to help ensure staff were able to work safely while supporting people. In addition, there was a lone working policy in place and staff had received training to support safe lone working practices.

At the time of this assessment, there was only the registered provider in post. Call times were not monitored, which limited oversight of the timeliness of care delivery. The registered manager received supervision and appraisal from an external consultant.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure future staff received appropriate support via supervision and appraisal and that their practice was routinely checked to ensure they provided safe and appropriate care. These arrangements had not yet been implemented or tested. As a result, we were unable to fully assess this quality statement and award score.

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.

An infection prevention and control (IPC) policy and training were in place, and an IPC audit had been completed. There were observational checks of hand washing and adherence to IPC procedures.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

There was a policy in place outlining how medicines would be managed safely, and the registered manager was able to describe the processes they would follow to support safe administration. A medicines audit process was in place; however, there was no evidence of direct observation of staff or competency assessments. This meant the registered provider could not be assured medicines were safely administered in practice.