Conscience Care Limited

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 since its registration. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 63 (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 did not have a proactive and positive culture of safety. Lessons were not identified or shared to be proactive, promote safety and embed good practice.

The provider told us accidents and incidents were recorded within people’s individual records as they occurred. There was no process in place to identify themes and trends across the service, or to learn from events which may prevent a reoccurrence. This meant the provider did not learn from events and this placed people at risk across the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed. They made sure they supported continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People’s care and support needs were shared when necessary. Where information needed to be shared, this could be done easily as the provider worked with an electronic care planning system which could generate a summary care plan with ease. The provider told us they worked well with others involved in people’s care. Professionals did not raise any concerns about working with the service.

However, some details were conflicting in care records which could be a concern. The provider has committed to rectifying this oversight.

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.

People told us they felt safe in the care and support of staff from Conscience Care Limited, and a relative told us their loved one was, “very safe”, with staff. Staff knew how to ensure people were protected from harm and abuse. Staff told us how they would raise concerns both within the service and externally.Staff had received training in safeguarding people, and this had been refreshed annually.

Safeguarding was discussed at meetings, and the provider had a safeguarding policy in place which had template forms to record concerns. The provider told us they had not needed to report any safeguarding concerns to the local authority.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and record the management of risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were not protected from the risk of avoidable harm as risks to their safety and wellbeing were not always recorded accurately. Record contained conflicting information and staff did not always have the accurate information to provide safe care.

However, staff told us they tried to understand people’s individual risks and gave us examples of how they supported people to remain safe, including with mobility risks and medication.

The provider told us they were transferring their care, support and risk plans to a new electronic system. They told us this would improve recording.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure checks of the environment supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental risk assessments were in place for people’s care and support. Staff had received training on using equipment correctly, for example, equipment used to help people move around their home. Staff had undergone competency assessments to ensure they were working with correct techniques for supporting people to move safely. Assessments stated actions staff should take to ensure people were evacuated safely in an emergency.

The provider did not always make sure staff were planned to meet the needs of people using the service to ensure a consistent and reliable service. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People told us their service was unreliable, and communication from the management team when there was a disruption to planned care was inconsistent. This had caused distress and dissatisfaction. The provider did not always have oversight over comparisons between planned and actual care visits. This meant they could not assure themselves people were receiving a good standard of service.

Staff received induction training and this included shadow shifts, but this was not always recorded. Staff supervisions and spot checks were planned to take place every 3 months; this had not happened as planned. This meant there were missed opportunities to support staff and ensure standards were met. The provider told us they had scheduled them in for the rest of 2026. There was a programme of staff training, the provider did not have an overview of this other than to receive an email prompt when courses expired. This meant they could not plan or be assured staff had the necessary skills and training completed in accordance with update timescales set by their policies. Staff told us they felt they had enough training. A member of staff said, “The training provided is helpful and gives me the knowledge and confidence to carry out my role safely and effectively.” Another staff member told us, “Ihave completed the training I need, and I can ask for more training if needed.”

However, staff were recruited safely into the service, and all the necessary checks had been carried out, including references and the right to work in the UK.

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 from avoidable infections as staff had received infection prevention and control training. Staff had access to enough personal protective equipment and supplies to support hygienic working practice. A relative said, “Staff always wear an apron for personal care.”

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

People were at risk of not receiving their medicines, as prescribed, due to varying visit times. There was a delay sometimes in administering medicines as visit times did not always take place as planned. Staff had received training in how to give medicines safely and the provider told us staff practice was checked, yet they had not always made a record of the checks.

The provider told us their electronic care planning system recorded when medicines were given, the system alerted if medicines were late or not given. This meant the provider could follow up with staff to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. However, where this had occurred records had not been made. This meant the provider could not have oversight of compliance with medicines.

Where people were prescribed medicines to take occasionally, guidance documents were available to ensure this happened consistently. The provider told us this process had not been needed by anyone currently using the service.