Gemcare South West Plymouth

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 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.

Systems for recording incidents and accidents had improved. Records showed where safety concerns had been identified, actions had been taken to minimise the risk of further harm. Staff knew how to raise concerns, and most staff told us these were actioned. However, one staff member felt there was sometimes a delay in professional input being sought. The manager told us they are continuing to work on improving communication which was discussed in staff meetings.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

Systems for reporting safeguarding had improved. The manager had raised safeguarding concerns with the local authority safeguarding team. The service had informed the CQC of incidents, as required.

People told us they felt safe when receiving care and support.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. When people receive care and treatment in their own homes, an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how they managed DoLS within the service. At the time of the assessment, no one using the service had a court of protection authorised to deprive them of their liberty.

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’s individual risk assessments had improved. Risks had been assessed and reviewed. Risk assessments reflected people’s preferences and changing needs.

People were involved in their assessment of risk. Staff told us care plans and risk assessments now contained better information. Staff were given relevant training to help them keep people safe. For example, staff completed training to use equipment safely to support people.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

People told us they were happy with their regular care staff who knew how to meet their needs. However, some people told us staff who were new to them did not always meet their needs so well. One person said when some staff visited, they rushed them, cut their visit short, and had not followed the care plan. This meant the person was having to undress without help which made them breathless.

Most staff had completed the required training. Where staff needed to complete overdue training, the manager had offered them support. Staff had completed the Oliver McGowan training on Learning Disability and Autism. Staff told us they were having regular supervision and spot checks.

Staff recruitment processes had improved, and staff were being recruited safely.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

People told us they were happy with the way their medicines were managed.

Staff had completed medicines training and were observed giving medicines to ensure this was done safely. The provider had a medicines management policy. When staff administered medicines, they completed medicine administration record (MAR) sheets. This showed people received the right medicines at the right times.

Medicines audits were now being completed every month. Where issues were identified, these had been followed up.