Dorcas Care Ltd Also known as Sparcells Office

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 requires improvement.

This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

This service scored 62 (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.

There had not been any recorded accidents or incidents at the service since it registered. However, there was a template to record when these occurred, and there was a space to record actions identified and any learning from these. Leaders told us they were open to feedback and valued learning opportunities as a way of improving the service.

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.

Leaders told us people had their care reviewed following hospital discharge to ensure it was still relevant, and we saw an example of this during the assessment. Leaders said they would send key information about a person if they were admitted to hospital. This helped provide continuity of care 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.

Leaders had received training in safeguarding and understood how to protect people from abuse. There was a clear policy which outlined safeguarding procedures for staff. Relatives told us they did not have any safeguarding concerns.
 

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.

Risks people faced were assessed and there were mitigations to reduce these risks. Relatives told us staff had a good understanding of people’s needs to enable them to manage risks effectively. People were involved in the reviews of their care planning documents. This meant they were had control and ownership of their care.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. However, they did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

At the time of the assessment, leaders were not documenting visual checks and checks by other contractors on equipment, and checks were instead carried out informally. This meant the provider could not be assured checks were completed routinely or that any shortfalls with equipment were acted upon.Leaders told us they would start documenting these checks.

However, leaders assessed risks to people relating to their environment, such as trip hazards. This helped staff keep people safe from environmental hazards. People had information in their care plans about the equipment they used. This meant staff would know how to safely support people with their equipment.

One relative told us, “[Registered manager] respects [family member’s] home environment, maintains good hygiene standards and ensures mum is left safe and comfortable after each visit.”

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.

At the time of the assessment, there had not been any recruited staff working for the service. However, leaders showed us the templates they would use for prospective staff. The provider’s policy was in line with legislation and safe recruitment practices. Leaders told us, “It is a challenge with recruitment, – we are sifting through applicants, they really need to care, we are more concerned about people doing the right job rather than growing as company.”

Leaders had completed a range of training relevant to people’s needs. Relatives told us the registered manager arrived on time for the care visits and stayed for the full duration. One relative said, “[Registered manager] always communicates clearly with [family member] about what time she will come, and in my experience, she is reliable and punctual. This is extremely important, as my [family member] depends on their support for her personal care and routine.”

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.

Leaders had completed training in infection prevention and control (IPC). There was an IPC policy which outlined procedures for staff. Leaders told us they had access to personal protective equipment and relatives confirmed this was used where appropriate. Another relative commented that the registered manager “maintains a high standard of cleanliness.”

The provider did not make sure that medicines and treatments were safe.

People’s care plans contained unclear guidance in relation to their support around medicines. Additionally, leaders were not always recording where staff were prompting and administering medicines. This meant there was a risk of people being supported incorrectly.

One person was taking a controlled medicine on a ‘when required’ basis. There was no clear protocol for staff to follow to know when to administer this medicine. These risks were reduced as the registered manager was the only person responsible for delivering care and knew the person well.

The service was supporting one person with a topical medicine which had flammable properties. Although leaders had identified some risks in relation to the topical medicine, they had not identified the risk relating to fire. This put the person at risk of harm if they were in contact with a naked flame.

However, leaders had completed training in medicines. There was information in people’s care plans about the medicines they took and what these were used for. Leaders acted promptly in response to our feedback relating to the shortfalls with medicines.