Kope-Medics 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 inspection for this service. At this inspection, this key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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. People told us complaints were listened to and acted upon. One person told us, “They listen, and issues are addressed within 24 hours.” The provider documented when things went wrong. They also documented investigations into incidents and measures were put in place to prevent repetition. They ensured the complainant was informed of progress each step of the way throughout an investigation process to its conclusion.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They ensured there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. At the time of the inspection, no people were moving between different services. However, the provider worked with schools and colleges to ensure people were appropriately supported with care in these settings, so they were able to have their educational needs met despite their care and support needs. Care plans documented people’s care needs within the home and in the community.

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.Staff told us they received training in safeguarding adults and children, and we saw evidence to support this training had taken place. Staff told us they knew how to raise safeguarding concerns if required. One member of staff said, “We put people at the centre of their care, concerns I would report to my line manager for further investigation.” People and their relatives told us they felt people were protected from bullying and abuse. One person said, “Yes, they protect [relative] from 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. People told us the provider worked with them to put care plans and risk assessments together. Risk assessments covered areas of complex care including PEG feeding, moving and handling and additional behavioural support. One person said, “I was involved in the creation of the care plan. The came to our home and did a risk assessment.” The registered manager told us people were contacted regularly with visits and by phone calls to ensure care being delivered was still relevant, safe and effective and feedback from people confirmed this. For people who required specialist care needs, the provider ensured the staff member was specially trained to deliver support effectively. This staff member would meet with people and their relatives as part of the assessment process and a person’s care, and support needs would be discussed at length.

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 had personal emergency evacuation plans in place for people; however, the annual review date had passed on some of these. We saw no evidence to support this effected the safety of people or staff. However, we raised this with the management team who assured us the plans would be reviewed and updated. The provider had home risk assessments in place, which looked at the safety of the home environment for both people and care workers. Fire risk assessments were completed. Care plans included a section dedicated to the detailing of equipment used to support people. It held information about, who provided the equipment, the dates equipment was serviced and when they were next due to be serviced. It also held information of who was responsible for arranging the service, ensuring risks were reduced in relation to equipment used to support people.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. We received mixed feedback of whether people felt staff were trained.One person said, "Some have not got a clue, but they usually work with the more experienced [staff]." However, most people told us they thought staff were well trained. We received comments like, "Yes, they are trained and competent. I know this from the level of how they report back to me." And "They do have training before they come."

Staff were recruited safely. The provider ensured all staff had Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks in place. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. The provider also ensured they gathered full employment histories to ensure staff were suitable for the role before employment was offered. Staff told us they received an induction upon beginning the job, as well as e learning and on the job learning. Staff supervision sessions took place at the beginning and throughout their employment. At the time of the inspection, the registered manager was a registered nurse registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) The provider ensured nursing staff received clinical supervision and additional training or refresher training courses as required.

Staff did not always follow the guidelines set out in the providers infection, prevention and control policy. We received the following comment from a relative in relation to staff, they told us, “Some of them wash their hands, some of the carers have laxed, they were reminded.” We raised this with the management team, who told us they had been alerted to this concern, and it had been addressed with the member of staff at the time. The member of staff had received additional training and increased supervision as a result. This behaviour put people at the risk of avoidable harm due to the risk of the spread of infection. Other people told us staff were very good with infection prevention and control. They told us staff washed their hands, and they used PPE such as gloves and masks. Staff told us they had no concerns with accessing PPE as required.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe. A relative told us of an incident where they prevented a member of staff providing incorrect treatment to a person. The relative said this near miss was caused because the staff member had not read the care plan properly. We raised this with the management team who told us they were aware of the incident. They told us they had spoken with the member of staff at the time of the incident. The member of staff had received additional training and extra supervision as a result. Staff not following protocol and not familiarising themselves with people’s care plans left people at the risk of avoidable harm. However, we did receive positive comments in relation to mediation like, ‘[Relative] gets their medication at the right time.’ and ‘They explain what is happening, they do suction and give medication.’ People’s medical care needs were documented on care plans and risk assessments.