Train2Care Academy

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 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.

People and their relatives told us they were able to raise safety concerns if they needed to and would speak to the registered manager if required.

Staff told us they were confident if they raised safety incidents, these would be suitably investigated. We saw minutes of staff meetings, which indicated the provider was proactive with ensuring lessons were learned if things went wrong.

The service had accident and incidents and complaints policies in place. At the time of the assessment, there had been no reported accidents and incidents or complaints in the 12 months prior.

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 ensured the service was able to support people with their care needs before an agreement for care to be delivered is made. People and their relatives were involved in the creation and review of care plans and risk assessments. Care plans and risk assessments had enough information to ensure a smooth transition should people need to move between services.

Staff felt communication was effective when new people were being supported by the service.

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.

The provider demonstrated an adequate understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and knew how to support people accordingly under this Act. Staff had also received training in safeguarding adults.

The service had policies in place regarding safeguarding adults and whistle blowing.

Staff told us they would report any sign of abuse immediately to the registered manger or appropriate authority. One staff member told us, “[We] follow policies to reduce the risk of harm and provide safe, person-centred care, to challenge discrimination and promote equality and inclusion.”

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the care delivered by Train2Care Academy.

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.

Care plans contained enough information to inform staff how to manage risks and keep people safe from avoidable harm. Care plans were created and reviewed with people and their relatives on a regular basis. This ensured staff were well informed on how to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm.

People told us they felt staff had the skills required to support them safely. Staff had received relevant training such as, Health and Safety within the Health and Social Care Environment, Basic Life Support and Manual Handling, to reduce the risk of avoidable harm to people.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment.

We reviewed records relating to a person who smoked and found there was no individual fire risk assessment in place to identify and manage risks associated with smoking. At the time of our assessment, relatives were consistently present in the home when care and support was being delivered, which reduced the immediate risk. However, due to the gap in risk management the concern was raised with the registered manager.

People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place, to inform staff how to safely evacuate people from their homes in the event of an emergency. Staff told us they have access to people’s personal evacuation plan and were confident they could guide people safely from their homes in the event of an emergency. One staff member said, “Yes, in the event of an emergency, I am able to follow the evacuation plan available to me in order to help evacuate people safely.”

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 provider had effective recruitment processes in place. Recruitment records showed staff had appropriate pre‑employment checks completed, including application forms, photographic identification, right to work in the UK, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, full employment histories and suitable references. This helped to ensure people were supported by safely recruited staff.

Staff received an induction at the beginning of their employment. Throughout their employment they had regular supervisions.

Staff received training in relation to personal development, duty of care, basic live support and communication to aid them to keep people safe. People told us they thought staff were well trained and suitable to support them with their care needs, and that this was done well.

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.

People and their relatives told us staff respected their homes, and they were always left clean and tidy after care visits. They confirmed staff always used personal protective equipment (PPE) when delivering support and personal care.

The registered manager told us they ensured there was an overstock of PPE to prevent shortages. The service completed an inventory every 2 months, and ensured orders were put in early so there was always a backup level of stock.

Staff had received training in infection control and food safety and hygiene – which included the good disposal of waste.People and their relatives told us staff always wore PPE appropriately.

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.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s medicines support needs. They had received training in how to support people with medicines.

At the time of the assessment, staff were not supporting people with medication. This task was completed by relatives, and care plans documented this clearly. However, medicines people were prescribed was clearly stated on all care plans, so staff were aware of what people were taking.