Prestige Care & Support 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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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 positive culture of safety. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

At our last inspection, we found that there was not a robust system in place to ensure lessons were learned following incidents. We saw evidence that learning had not been fully embedded after an incident relating to eating and drinking. This was demonstrated by ongoing shortfalls in people’s risk assessments, which did not adequately address or minimise the risks associated with eating and drinking.

During this assessment, we found the provider had a system for recording accidents and incidents. The registered manager looked into what happened and why and lessons were learnt as part of this, so they could prevent the same things from happening again. This helped keep people as safe as possible.

People and staff were informed of the result of any investigations. Everyone was encouraged to report concerns or safety issues without worrying about being blamed.

A member of the management team was on-call for staff to contact in case of an emergency. Procedures were in place for staff to follow in an emergency, for example, if a person had a fall and was on a medicine that could cause excessive bleeding.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them using the service. This assessment looked at all areas of their care, including mobility, medical history, allergies, medicines and risk of choking. People and their family were involved in this process. This helped make sure staff could support them safely.

The management team collected as much information as possible from people and their relatives so care plans matched the person’s wishes and needs. It also helped the provider decide whether they could meet each person’s needs properly.

The management team worked closely with other professionals to make sure care remained safe and consistent when people moved between different services or when being discharged from hospital. This helped them spot any changes in someone’s needs and respond quickly.

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.

During our last inspection, we found that although staff were familiar with safeguarding procedures, gaps in essential training meant they were not fully equipped to provide safe care and support.

During this assessment, we found people were safeguarded from abuse or harm and staff understood how to keep them safe and report any concerns they had. Records showed and staff confirmed they had undertaken training to support their knowledge and understanding of how to keep people safe.

People and their relatives commented positively about the service. People said they felt safe when staff visited them, and they would feel comfortable speaking up if they ever did not feel safe.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to protect people from the risks of harm or abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from harm. A member of staff told us, “I will report any abuse to my manager. If nothing is done, I will contact the local authority or CQC.”

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.

At our last inspection, we found that robust risk assessments were not in place to ensure people received safe care. When supporting people with meals, assessments had not been completed to determine whether people were at risk of choking, how their food should be prepared, or the position in which they should be supported when eating and drinking to ensure their safety. We also found that the assessments did not identify whether people could eat independently or required staff support. This meant there was a risk that people may not receive safe care and support at all times.

During this assessment, we found risks to people were assessed and management plans were in place to inform staff how to reduce and manage risks to maintain people’s safety including eating and drinking.

Where people were identified at risk, appropriate measures were put in place. There was guidance for staff to follow on what actions to take in relation to managing risks to ensure people were as safe as possible.

People were supported by staff who knew how to keep them safe and reduce risks. Staff kept an eye on people’s health and wellbeing and told the management team if any new risks appeared, so action could be taken to prevent harm.

Risk assessments were checked and updated regularly to reflect any changes in people’s needs, preferences, or situations, for example, when a person had a fall.

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

The management team made sure people received care in a safe environment. They checked for any hazards and put measures in place to reduce those risks.

The provider also carried out health and safety checks of people’s homes to keep people and staff safe. Equipment used by staff, such as hoists, was checked regularly by an external company to make sure they worked properly.

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.

People and their relatives felt the staff had the knowledge and skills to look after people who used the service. A person said, “The staff are very good. I don’t have any complaint.” A relative told us, “I am very happy with the carers, they are fabulous.”

At our last inspection, we found that staff supported people with catheter care and training had not been provided in this area from a qualified professional.

During this assessment, we found staff received the training and support they needed for their roles. They completed courses in important areas like moving and handling, first aid, catheter care and food hygiene to make sure they were competent. Staff said the training they received was of a good standard. All staff were trained in first aid, as well as dysphagia and choking awareness, to ensure they could respond effectively to emergencies and recognise any signs or concerns relating to choking. Training was delivered through a combination of in-house sessions and online training.

People were cared for by staff who knew them well. There were enough staff to provide personalised support. The same staff or small team visited each person, which helped ensure consistent and continuous care. The provider used a system to track when staff arrived and left each care visit. This helped ensure people received their support on time and enabled office staff to notify them if staff were running late.

The provider had a good recruitment process to make sure staff had the right skills and experience. Before new staff started work, all necessary employment checks were carried out. This helped ensure people using the service were not cared for by anyone barred from working with vulnerable people. The provider also carried out checks to ensure that staff could work lawfully in the country.

The provider had been actively recruiting male staff in response to request from a number of male people who used the service, due to their religious beliefs, and preferred to receive care from male staff only.

The provider had an induction programme for all new staff. This covered staff roles, responsibilities, and important policies and procedures. New staff shadowed experienced staff until they felt confident to work alone. They also had a probation period, which allowed the provider to assess their skills, performance, and how well they fitted into the service.

Staff received the support they needed to provide good care. They had regular one-to-one meetings with their line managers to talk about things like training and people’s care needs. This meant that management team regularly assessed and monitored staff’s ability to meet people’s needs. A staff member said, “I had my supervision, we discussed training, and how I am doing, client’s needs, etc.

The provider had an effective approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection, which is in line with current relevant national guidance.

The provider had policies to prevent and control infections. Staff were given protective equipment, such as aprons and gloves. They had received infection control training and understood their responsibilities in managing infections.

At our last inspection, we found the service supported people with catheter care, and no risk assessments had been completed in this area to minimise the risk of infections when staff supported people with catheter care.

During this assessment, we found staff had been provided with training about catheter care to prevent infections and other complications. The management team continually monitored staff through observations and spot checks to ensure they knew how to minimise the risk of infection.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

When people needed help with their medicines, staff supported them appropriately. People had no concerns about how staff helped with their medicines. Staff also reminded people to take their medicines on time. There was guidance in place on how staff must support people to ensure they had their medicines as prescribed. Staff had received training in the management of medicine.

Records showed people had received their medicines as prescribed and staff had recorded this to indicate people had taken their medicines.

The provider had a medicines policy and procedures for staff to follow when helping people with their medicines. They also checked that staff were competent in managing medicines safely.