Care To You Healthcare

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 72 (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 had been learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to promote safety and to understand and respond to any safety incidents to avoid reoccurrence. Though we saw these had been understood and followed by management and staff, incidents and accidents were not clearly recorded, which meant oversight for learning was not always clear. We fed this back to the registered manager.

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 had systems in place which helped ensure people were able to transition between services safely. The registered managers reviewed new referrals and ensured preadmission assessments were accurate. This helped staff understand what support people needed to transition into the service.

All people supported by the service had a hospital passport in place which provided up to date information about people’s needs, medical conditions and communication and support needs to provide guidance to other professionals and services. People were supported by staff to make and attend appointments and shared up to date information with a range of healthcare partners, including consultants, learning disability nurses and community health care services.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. However, incidents were not always recorded clearly and the provider did not always identify in a timely fashion if a safeguarding incident needed investigating.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns. However, the provider had not always raised concerns with the local authority safeguarding team. This meant some incidents may have passed without proper consideration from the deciding authority of further action required to ensure risks were mitigated for the future. We fed this back this with the registered manager and clearer recording of incidents was created during the assessment.

Staff were confident they could raise concerns with management staff, and they would be responded to properly. Most relatives were confident people were safe, comments included, “[Name] is safe, they couldn’t be any safer.” And “[Name] is safe because they have carers there all the time. We have met them, and they are decent people.”

People’s rights were safeguarded because staff and management followed best practice guidance and the legal processes detailed in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Where people were deprived of their liberty any conditions included in the legal authorisations were followed by the provider.

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 had been supported to manage risks to their safety, health and wellbeing. Staff and management followed the providers’ risk management policies and procedures. Risk assessments had been completed, reviewed, and updated in response to incidents and events. Some risk assessments could have more detail for staff. For example, if somebody had a catheter, more information about what staff should look out for in the event of a problem would be beneficial. This was addressed during the assessment.

Environmental risk assessments were completed to ensure that staff could undertake care and support safely in people’s homes.

Assessments of the environments of people’s homes highlighted any risks or factors that could impact carers access and their ability to undertake safe and effective care. Assessments identified where hazardous materials were stored or impacted support, while appliances that might be used to provide domestic tasks were assessed.

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.

The providers robust recruitment policies meant people were supported by staff who had been recruited safely. Staff had access to a broad range of training opportunities. Staff received training appropriate to their roles with some bespoke training related to people’s specific needs and conditions.

Staff were skilled and knowledgeable about their roles and the people they supported.

Staff received regular formal and informal supervision. Staff said they felt well supported by management and could ask for support at any time.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of infection spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People were protected from the risk of infection because staff understood and followed effective infection prevention control policies and procedures. People and staff had access to personal protective equipment, including gloves, aprons and hand gel.

People told us that staff always wore the appropriate PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) when being supported with personal care for example.

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.

People received their medicines as prescribed, from staff who were trained and had their competencies checked regularly. Medicines were securely stored; medicine administration records were completed accurately.