Care Quality Services Potter’s Court

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 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.

People and staff felt confident in raising safety issues and told us senior staff would address their concerns. The provider had good oversight of incidents, accidents and complaints. They used concerns raised through their online system to record and resolve issues raised by staff about people. The provider had used incidents to make improvements and embed good practice. Staff were informed of these through supervisions, team meetings or updates via their mobile care application. The provider used a “You said, we did” approach following feedback to provide people with assurances action had been taken to improve the service when concerns were raised.
 

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.
This provider assessed people prior to starting their package of care. The provider ensured care was organised flexibly, with adjustments made to meet people’s changing needs. This included when people attended appointments, when their health needs changed or when they were admitted to or discharged from hospital. Staff told us they were always informed when people started with the service, or people came out of hospital with different needs. Information was available on people’s care plan and via messaging on their mobile care application. There was evidence of communications by the service with various organisations and professionals including hospitals, speech and language therapists (SaLT), social workers, district nurses and GPs. This helped to ensure a safe transition for people.
 

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 with external agencies.
People and relatives told us they felt safe receiving support from the staff, and were able to raise issues if there were any. The provider had effective safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Senior staff demonstrated a thorough approach to investigating safeguarding concerns, to help reduce the risk of people suffering abuse or coming to avoidable harm.
All staff were trained in safeguarding adults and children and knew what signs to look out for and who to report this to. Staff told us it was important to make sure no abuse or neglect was experienced and they would call the manager or on-call if they had any questions.
 

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.
The provider considered risks to people as part of their assessment, when the person started with the service. People and relatives told us they had been involved in creating their care plans. Risk assessments were documented throughout care plans with mitigating actions to reduce risks identified, to promote positive outcomes for people around their safety. This gave appropriate guidance to staff to provide good quality care. Staff we spoke with were clear about these risks and how to mitigate them. Staff told us there was enough information and it was clear what they needed to do. For example, how to prepare food or drink to the correct consistency where a person was at risk of choking. People we spoke with were happy with the quality of care provided.
 

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 carried out assessments of people’s home environments to identify and reduce any risks related to the delivery of care. This included checking when hoists were last serviced and arranging for hoists to be inspected to ensure they were safe to use. Staff told us they checked the inspection dates and condition of equipment before use, and ensured it was the correct equipment for each person.
The provider had invested in technological solutions to aid the delivery of safe care. This included electronic care planning systems and mobile care applications. This helped to improve safety and the provider’s ability to monitor how care was delivered. Staff had completed fire safety training and were aware of the procedure to follow if there was a fire.
 

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.

We reviewed 4 recruitment records during the inspection which showed staff were recruited safely and the appropriate pre-employment checks had been completed. These included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. A suitable recruitment policy was in place.

People and relatives told us they usually had regular staff, although some people would like to get to know new staff more before they started providing care. The registered manager was using extra shadow shifts to achieve this. People told us staff were on time and stayed for the full duration of their calls. They also told us they thought staff were well trained.

The provider made sure staff received support and supervision. Training and development opportunities were available to staff. Records evidenced staff received an appropriate induction including training and shadowing. Training for staff across all mandatory subjects was up to date and complied with best practice guidance. This included required learning on working with people with a learning disability or autistic people. Staff training was a combination of in-house or external face to face and online. The registered manager told us they would review improving specific training relevant to people’s health conditions as staff currently used information leaflets to gain knowledge of specific conditions.
 

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.

The provider had effective infection control policies and procedures in place. Staff told us there were adequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), and they knew when to use it. The provider used regular spot checks to confirm this. One person told us, “They (staff) always wash hands.” This helped to ensure staff were following effective infection control procedures.
 

The provider made sure that people received their medicines as prescribed and medicines management met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Medicines were administered as required and in line with people’s prescriptions. When people received their medicine covertly, the relevant best interest decisions and guidance were in place. This helped ensure appropriate consent to medicines administration was gained. The provider had policies and procedures developed in line with national guidance, to help ensure staff were following best practice when supporting people with their medicines. The provider had taken over responsibility for ordering and delivery of medicines to ensure people always had their medicine available. They also followed up any discrepancies with the pharmacy or GP.
People’s care plans detailed the support people needed to manage their medicines, and levels of independence people wished to maintain. As required medicines (PRN) protocols were detailed and individual. This guided staff to know when they were required. Staff were trained to administer medicines and their competency to do so safely was assessed via spot checks.

Staff completed an electronic medicine administration record when they administered people’s medicine. This was monitored by the provider for missed medicines alerts, and medicine records were promptly updated when people’s prescriptions changed. The provider had adjusted care call times where people required strict time-specific medicines as prescribed.