Care Relief Team Limited (Carewatch Sheffield)

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 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 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 monitored accidents and incidents to identify and address where improvements could be made and worked proactively to identify areas for improvement and had implemented action plans where needed.

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. Professionals spoke positively about their experience of working with the service. Professionals told us the communication with the provider was consistently good, staff knew the people they supported well, and information sharing was always effective.

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. Staff received training in safeguarding and told us they felt people were safe at the service. During the assessment, information was shared with inspectors which may have indicated a person was at risk. The manager acted quickly and appropriately to address these concerns. This demonstrated staff and leaders understood how to identify and address safeguarding concerns. People and their relatives told us they felt safe. A relative told us, “[Staff] are 10 out of 10, lovely, caring, friendly and supportive.”

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 and their relatives were involved in care planning and records evidenced that care plans contained person centred information. A relative told us, “When my relative moved in, someone from the office came and we sat down and talked about all the things they needed. We have had several reviews since then.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Staff received training in how to safely use equipment people needed to support their care. People’s care plans included an assessment of their home environment to ensure safety for both the person and staff.

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. Records evidenced staff received training, supervision and support to enable them to complete their roles safely. Feedback from staff indicated, in some areas, staff numbers had been an issue, with some staff feeling they had to cover shifts frequently. There was no evidence this had impacted on the well-being of people receiving support. People told us they were supported by a consistent team of staff they felt safe with. Staff were recruited safely and the provider was actively working to recruit more care and supervisory staff to reduce the number of shifts needing cover.

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. Staff had access to adequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) and received training to understand and reduce the risk of infection.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. The provider had not ensured that medicines were always managed safely. Where people were prescribed ‘as required’ medicines, protocols to support staff to administer these safely were not always in place. We found instances where we could not be assured the correct dose of medicine had been administered due to recording omissions on medicines administration records (MAR). Some MAR charts contained recordings which were unclear, and where medicines had been omitted, it was not always clear why. No harm was identified to people during the assessment however poor record keeping could place people at an increased risk of potential harm. The provider had completed an audit and had identified the concerns found; an action plan was in place to improve medicines administration and record keeping. This included additional staff to complete medicines audits, additional information sent to staff regarding medicine recording and a review of records relating to ‘as required’ medicines. The provider worked quickly to rectify concerns found in this area.