St Mary’s Team Care

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.

The provider reviewed accidents, incidents and near misses that had taken place at the service. This was to determine the cause and the impact of events on people and the actions to be taken to prevent reoccurrence. The registered manager shared the lessons learned from these events with the office-based staff and care staff.

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.

The provider ensured safe pathways into the service. People participated in assessments before they received a service. This was to ensure that people’s needs and preferences could be safely met and their identified risks managed.

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.

The provider had an up-to-date safeguarding process that staff were familiar with and were trained to follow. Staff told us they received safeguarding training. They explained the signs of different types of abuse and the actions they would take to keep people safe. The registered manager understood their responsibility to notify the local authority safeguarding team and the regulator as soon as they became aware of any safeguarding incidents.

We found people’s mental capacity was assessed and they were supported with best interests’ decisions. Where people had appointed individuals with lasting power of attorney, this was documented in care records. This meant people were supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

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 protected from foreseeable harm. The provider supported people with a range of risk assessments. Where risks were identified, actions were taken to mitigate them. For example, where people were at risk of pressure sores, referrals were made to healthcare specialists. Staff followed the guidance of healthcare specialists within people’s care records. This meant people’s skin integrity was protected.

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 assessed safety within people’s homes to avoid people experiencing avoidable harm. For example, staff regularly assessed, removed and recorded risks related to tripping hazards. This helped to reduce people’s risk of falling.

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.

People received their care and support from staff who were safe and suitable. The provider used robust processes when recruiting staff. These processes included reviewing applications, interviewing candidates, taking up references and checking criminal records databases.

Staff received the training they required to deliver care and support safely. One relative told us that staff, “Have the right skills and capabilities to do what is asked of them.” One member of staff told us, “I had an induction when I started. It prepared me. I did a lot of training. Moving and handling was important.” Staff received training in a range of areas including safeguarding, mental capacity, medicines and infection prevention and control. This meant the provider supported staff to acquire the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs appropriately.

The registered manager, with the support of the office-based team, ensured there were enough staff available to support people. Rotas were used to plan the deployment of staff. Staff told us they had enough time to travel between care visits and people told us that staff were punctual.

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.

People were protected against the risk and spread of infection. Staff received infection prevention and control training and wore personal protective equipment [PPE] when meeting people’s personal care needs. PPE included single-use gloves, masks, aprons and over-shoes. This meant people were protected against the risk of cross-contamination by the safe hygiene practices of staff.

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.

Staff received medicines training and understood the provider’s medicines procedures. Care records stated the support people required to take their medicines safely. For example, some people’s medicines were administered by relatives, whilst others required prompting from staff. When staff prompted and supervised people to take their medicine, they recorded this in medicines administration records [MARs]. Managers regularly reviewed people’s MARs to confirm medicines had been taken as directed and recorded appropriately.