The Healthcare Professional Services 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. 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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service ensured incidents and concerns were immediately investigated and changes made to people’s care and support where required.

Staff were involved in discussions about safe practice through supervisions and other regular contact with their manager to ensure lessons were learned. Staff told us they received the information they required in a timely manner when there was any change in a person’s care and support needs.

The service 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.

Processes to support safe care delivery were largely effective. Risk assessments contained clear guidance for staff to ensure care was carried out safely. Information and guidance provided by healthcare and other professionals was included in care records. The provider undertook spot checks for care provided outside overnight shifts and routinely sought feedback from families and other professionals about the safety of care provided. This demonstrated a commitment to safe and positive experiences

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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.

People and their families were provided with information about safeguarding and knew how to raise any concerns they might have. Staff had received safeguarding training. They understood their roles and responsibilities in ensuring people were safe and reporting any incidents or suspicions immediately. The provider understood their responsibilities in reporting safeguarding concerns to the Local Authority. They also understood the need to provide safeguarding notifications to the CQC.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff worked with family members to agree risk assessments and management plans for the children and young people they supported. Families were asked for feedback, which enabled their involvement in shaping care and identifying risks. Risk assessments contained clear, specific safety actions, supporting staff to manage risks collaboratively and effectively. The parents we spoke with confirmed they had been involved in agreeing risk assessments.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider had carried out risk assessments relating to the environment and use of equipment. These included detailed guidance for staff on mitigating risk. For example, guidance was provided for staff on the importance of ensuring back up batteries for equipment such as ventilators were always fully charged in case of a power failure.

The service 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.

Although staff were recruited safely and received the required mandatory training. There were gaps that potentially affected staffing effectiveness. The provider’s training matrix lacked detail, particularly around non‑mandatory training, such as for enteral (tube) feeding training, essential to meeting the needs of some children and young people supported by the service. While specialist competency checks had been completed, no records were in place to show staff had always received the relevant training. We discussed this with the manager who advised us they would ensure dates and details of training were recorded going forward.

Staff received regular supervision sessions with a manager to discuss their development and practice. However, there was no evidence of regular staff team meetings. This limited opportunities for staff, many of whom work in isolation or at night, to share learning, raise concerns, and discuss care with other colleagues. Although staff felt well supported, the absence of structured team meetings potentially reduced managerial oversight and limited the development of a cohesive and consistently informed staff team.

We discussed these concerns with the manager who told us they would be addressed immediately.

The service 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 ensured infection control was safely managed, and risk assessments included clear instructions for maintaining hygiene and safe infection prevention and control. Staff received training in infection prevention and control. Personal protective equipment, such as disposable masks, gloves and aprons were delivered to children’s homes when staff or parents advised the service that stocks were low. Staff and parents confirmed this was the case.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff had received training in safe administration of medicine. Where required, additional training was provided, such as in relation to providing medicines through, for example, a percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy (PEG) feeding tube where people had difficulties swallowing.

Risk assessments had been carried out for children and young people who were supported to receive their prescribed medicines.

Medicines administration records were up to date and correctly completed. These were audited by the provider on a regular basis.