A Caring Company 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.

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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

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.

Staff protected people’s right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People told us they felt safe. One person said, “I feel very safe with my carers who come in the morning.” A relative commented, “My [family member] feels safe with the carers. Staff are fully trained and are polite to both me and [family member].”

Staff had received safeguarding training and knew about the different types of abuse and who they could report concerns to. One staff member told us, “We annually receive safeguarding training which I find to be paramount to the care I provide. There can be a range of issues I can report in a call from noticing any form of abuse, it could be anything from verbal abuse to neglect.”

The service had policies and procedures which covered how to safeguard vulnerable people from abuse and how to ‘whistle blow’ if necessary. We saw safeguarding training was considered essential by the provider and all staff completed this and regular refresher courses. The training records and discussions with staff confirmed this. The registered manager maintained a safeguarding log, to ensure they had effective managerial oversight of any safeguarding concerns. Records showed the provider reported safeguarding incidents as required to the relevant agencies.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risks associated with people’s care, support and environment had been identified, assessed and plans put in place to reduce risks. A relative told us, “[Family member] feels very safe with the carers. They always have a big smile on their face when the carers are there. The staff accompany [family member] in the shower to make sure they are okay and sit with them while they eat because they have a chocking issue.” They also told us that the staff would raise any concerns with them and said, “They noticed [family member] had a pressure sore and took action.”

Staff were aware of people’s risk assessments and felt they could confidently support people safely. One staff member told us, “Some of the risk assessments include nutritional and food safety risk assessments and medication risk assessments. For example, a medication risk assessment ensures medication is administered safely and effectively, protecting both of us, the support workers and clients from harm.” Another member of staff commented, “There are various risk assessments in place to help protect both service users and staff. For example, we have a manual handling risk assessment that identifies potential hazards related to moving or supporting individuals, outlining the safest techniques and equipment to use to reduce the risk of injury.”
 

Risks were reviewed and updated if people’s needs changed. Environmental risks were identified for all properties that staff visited. Risk assessments always addressed people's diverse needs. For example, people's specific needs around their mental health support were assessed. In all instances, these had been reviewed regularly to make sure they remained up to date and reflected changes to people's circumstances.

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 made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. We received positive feedback about the levels of staffing. One person said, “The staffing level is fine; they’re usually early and stay longer than usual. The carer sends me a text if they’re going to be late. Communication is really good.”

People told us they saw the same staff which provided consistency and made sure they received their care by staff that knew them well. A relative commented, “[Family member] was finally persuaded that they needed support, particularly personal care. They are now fine with it, which has been helped that [family member] has the same core group of carers.”

Staff expressed satisfaction regarding staffing levels, and 1 staff member said, “I think our staffing levels are excellent throughout the week including weekends. Our great management ensures that we are given workloads that we can manage and that also allow us to work flexibly and find a balance between work and life.”

The provider followed a robust procedure when recruiting staff to work at the service, to ensure people were protected from staff that may not be fit to support them. An assessment of people’s needs was completed before a care package was agreed. This meant the provider was able to assess how much support a person needed and how many staff were required to provide that support safely. The assessment also identified the skill mix of staff needed to provide people’s care. Staff rotas showed that sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs.

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.

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