Broadway Care Solutions 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.

Incident reporting processes were established. Learning from incidents and concerns were reflected through updates to care planning and supervision discussions with staff where required.

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, risk assessments, and daily notes support safe care delivery.

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.

Safeguarding policies and systems were in place and regularly reviewed. Staff had completed safeguarding training and were able to clearly describe how they would recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns.

One staff member told us, “I look for physical signs such as bruises during personal care, or emotional signs like low mood, stress or fear. I would escalate immediately to my manager and, if I was not satisfied, I would escalate directly to the local authority safeguarding team and the CQC.”

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.

People were actively involved in identifying and managing risks associated with their care. Care plans and risk assessments showed that risks were discussed and agreed with people and, where appropriate, those important to them. Risk assessments were in place. These were personalised and proportionate, supporting independence while maintaining safety.

Daily care records were reviewed and provided clear, contemporaneous evidence of how staff supported people in line with their care plans and risk assessments. Records described what support was provided, people’s responses and any observations relevant to safety. This supported continuity of care and effective risk management.

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

Risks associated with the premises, equipment and the individual needs of people were identified, assessed and managed appropriately.

An environmental risk assessment was in place and reviewed to ensure the home remained a safe setting. On initial assessment, equipment was checked and confirmed to be in date and suitable for use.

Specific risks within the home were identified and mitigated where possible. For example, a risk assessment was in place for the coffee machine, recognising the potential risk from steam. A protocol had been implemented to control this risk and reduce the likelihood of injury.

Where there were limitations within the environment, these were clearly documented and managed. This was recorded within the person’s care plan, and clear guidance was provided for staff on how to support the person safely while reducing the risk of harm to both the person and staff.

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.

The provider had recruitment and vetting systems in place. Recruitment records indicate that staff employed to support people using the service were subject to appropriate pre‑employment checks.

Staffing levels were planned to meet people’s assessed needs. Where a care plan identified the requirement for double‑handed support, the rota clearly identified two staff members allocated to the visit at the appropriate times.

Records reviewed confirm that staff supervision arrangements were in place, providing structured opportunities to review performance, reinforce safe practice, and support staff development.

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.

Infection prevention and control arrangements were embedded within governance systems. Policies, checks and monitoring supported safe care delivery. Staff had completed infection control (IPC) training.

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.

At the time of this assessment, staff did not administer or directly support people with medicines. Medication support was safely managed through people’s next of kin, in line with assessed needs and agreed arrangements.

Where required, staff provided prompting with medicines, ensuring people were reminded at appropriate times without taking responsibility for handling or administering medicines. These arrangements were clearly understood by staff and reflected the person’s care plan.

Staff confirmed they were aware of their role and limitations in relation to medication support. All staff had received training relevant to medicines awareness and safe practice, enabling them to recognise when prompting was required and when to escalate any concerns.