Diversity4Care 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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.

Since the service started operating there had not been any incidents or accidents. There was an incident and accident policy in place with procedures to follow should anything occur to ensure people’s health and welfare.

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.

People had not needed to move between services since receiving support. However, staff worked with the person and their family to understand their needs and would liaise with other services as and when required.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They did not always concentrate on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

There had been no safeguarding concerns raised since the service started operating. Staff had received safeguarding adults’ training and a safeguarding policy was in place. However, we found this policy did not include some expected information such as how to recognise signs of abuse, what reporting procedures to follow, the role of the care worker within safeguarding concerns and how to report to the local authority safeguarding team.

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.

Staff assessed risks to people’s safety and management plans were in place instructing staff how to support people safely.

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

Information was included in people’s care records about how to ensure a safe environment was provided, including ensuring an environment was provided that was free from clutter and trip hazards. Care records included information about what equipment people required to keep them safe and staff ensured these were in good working order.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development.

People’s support was provided by the registered manager and the nominated individual. At the time of our assessment no care workers were employed. Recruitment policies and procedures were in place to ensure suitable systems were followed when staff were recruited.

Staff had completed the provider’s mandatory training. However, this did not include the statutory training on learning disabilities and autism. The registered manager and nominated individual told us they would complete this training. They had also identified that they would benefit from additional training relevant to people’s specific needs, for example, dementia training and were sourcing this training.

Supervision and appraisal systems were not in place as there were no care workers employed. The nominated individual and registered manager supported each other 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.

An infection prevention and control (IPC) policy was in place. Adherence with IPC procedures were checked through the management’s auditing process. Staff had access to personal protection equipment (PPE) to ensure people were protected from the risk and spread of infections.

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.

At the time of our assessment no-one required support with their medicines as this support was provided by the family. We will review this element of care at our next assessment.