Mercury Care Services 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 an accident and incident policy and procedures in place and staff knew how to record accidents and incidents. Accidents and incidents were recorded and the provider carried out regular audits to identify learning and improvements. Learning was shared with staff and action taken to improve 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. They had a policy and procedures in place for when people were admitted to hospital and discharged home.

People had hospital ‘passports’ containing information about their health conditions, which were used to inform other professionals about their support needs when they accessed other services. Staff met with other care providers and social services to share information when a person moved from 1 care provider to another.

The provider had a safeguarding policy and procedures in place. Staff had received safeguarding training, and they knew how to recognise and report abuse. The provider escalated concerns and reported safeguarding issues to the right organisations in a timely manner.

A person told us, “I feel safe and staff assist me in getting around safely.” Another person said, “I feel safe and the service has ensured I have the same carer to minimise confusion.” A person’s relative told us their [mother/father] was safe and said, “The carers are really good with [her/him]. “

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

However, record keeping in relation to some people’s risk assessments required some improvement. A person’s falls risk assessment did not include all the information about risks to their mobility. A person’s moving and handling risk assessment did not include instructions about what de-escalation techniques to use when necessary. A person’s tissue viability risk assessment was not fully completed. A person’s behaviour risk assessment did not include information about how to escalate concerns.

We found no evidence anyone had been harmed or adversely affected by these issues and staff knew people, their needs and abilities and the risks well, and people received care from the same members of staff. This meant the issue we found with people’s risk assessments was a record keeping issue and we have dealt with that in the governance, management and sustainability section of the Well-led key question.

The provider carried out health and safety risk assessments of people’s homes and staff used the information to reduce environmental risks to people.

People’s environmental risk assessments included instructions for staff regarding fire safety, trip hazards and how to manage a person’s pets, for example.

The provider had not always made sure there were enough staff. Staff had not always worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We found evidence staff punctuality required improvement, especially for 3 people, with a high number of care calls being delivered late. We also found 5 care calls that required 2 members of staff to support a person with moving and handling had been delivered by 1 member of staff. These issues put some people at risk of potential harm. We found no evidence anyone had been harmed or adversely affected by these issues.

A person told us the timing of their care calls had improved since speaking with the registered manager. They said, “When they [the service] started off it was a bit hit and miss because the carers were hours late every day, then I had a word with the manager because I have to have my medication at specific times.”

A person’s relative said, ‘I believe they’ve got enough staff because someone always comes. They [the person] do need two people because staff have to turn them over. Occasionally two people have not turned up.”

Another person told us, “Yes, they [staff] arrive on time, and when they are leaving, they let me know.” Another person’s relative said, “Yes, they [staff] pretty much arrive on time. I’ve got a camera, so I know.”

During our assessment the provider explained what they would do to improve staff punctuality and care call monitoring data and we were confident the provider would take the necessary action.

Staff had completed appropriate training and received annual refresher training. Staff received regular competency checks and supervision to ensure their knowledge and practice were safe and met required standards. The provider had systems in place to monitor and plan staff training and supervision.

New staff were introduced to people and shown what to do by an experienced member of staff before working alone with a person. A person told us, “They [staff] usually have somebody with them that shows them where everything is and talks them through what to do and what I like.”

The provider followed safer recruitment practice and carried out appropriate checks on new members of staff before employing them to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

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 an infection, prevention and control (IPC) policy and procedures in place and staff had received IPC training. Staff wore appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when providing personal care and knew how to dispose of used PPE correctly. The provider ensured there was always enough PPE for staff and carried out regular IPC audits.

A person told us, “‘They [staff] wear aprons and gloves. They always put gloves on.” Another person said, “‘When [member of staff] helps me with washing my back, they put on their apron, their gloves and their mask.” Another person told us, “They [staff] wear gloves and apron and their uniform. They’ve got their boxes [of PPE] kept with me, so they always have sufficient.” A person’s relative said, “They [staff] wear a plastic apron, they wear disposable gloves and they wear face coverings. They are supplied by Mercury; they make sure they [PPE] are on site. After they’ve finished washing [her/him], they will change the gloves and put fresh gloves on when they are feeding [her/him].”

The provider had not always made sure medicines management followed the correct procedures and had always been safe.

One person was not given 2 of their medicines on 1 occasion. Staff had not followed the prescription instructions or the correct procedure for not administering the medicines. The provider’s medicines audit had not identified the issue. This had put the person at risk of potential harm.

However, we found no evidence anyone had been harmed or adversely affected by this. During our assessment the provider explained what they would do to ensure their quality assurance processes always identified issues and staff always followed the correct procedures, and we were confident the provider would take the necessary action.

The provider followed medicines administration guidelines and staff had completed medicines administration records correctly. Staff had received medicines administration training and the provider carried out medicines audits regularly. People who had capacity to do so were supported to administer their own medicines. People usually received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

A person told us, “I can self-medicate, but the carers help me by mixing [a medicine] for me to take. They [staff] have not made any mistakes. They’re always really careful.” Another person said, “The carers collect my medication for me.”