Your Quality Care Services 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 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.

There had not been any accidents or incidents which had occurred; however leaders had a process to ensure they learnt from these. We saw evidence of staff meetings where improvements were discussed in relation to the documentation of care visits. This demonstrated a good learning culture.

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.

There were systems in place to ensure people safely transitioned to hospital. This included gathering information about the person, clothing and any other items they needed. People had ‘grab sheets’ in place which contained key information about people’s needs. This enabled medical staff such as paramedics to know how to support people safely.

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.

People told us they felt safe and had no concerns. Comments included, “I have no concerns” and “I’m not worried about anything”. Staff received training in safeguarding and knew how to respond in the event of a safeguarding concern. Staff told us they felt able to raise any concerns. There was a safeguarding policy which outlined procedures.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks.

There was not always enough information in people’s care plans about identified risks. For example, one person was at risk of a specific infection. There was limited information in the person’s care plan about how staff could help manage this risk. There was also limited information in care plans about risks relating to people’s health conditions. For example, one person’s care plan stated they have diabetes, however there was no information about signs to be aware of and how the condition affected the person.

However, other areas of risk had been appropriately documented. Staff felt they had enough information to manage risks effectively.

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

Leaders had assessed risks relating to people’s environment. For example, fire safety, gas safety and electrical safety precautions. People had moving and handling assessments in place which included ensuring the environment was safe for moving and handling to be carried out.

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.

Staff were recruited safely and received a range of training relevant to people’s needs, which was refreshed annually. Staff told us they felt training was of good quality. Staff also told us they received regular supervision and we saw evidence of this. Staff had enough travel time in between people’s call times. People told us staff came on time and stayed for the allocated time.

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.

Staff received training in infection prevention and control. They told us they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and that there was enough of this. People confirmed staff wore PPE where appropriate.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe.

Protocols were not in place for ‘when required’ medicines. This meant staff did not have clear guidance about when to administer certain medicines.

However, the risk was reduced as people were able to communicate when they needed these medicines. People did not raise any concerns about how their medicines were managed. Staff had been appropriately trained in medicines management.