Brand Care

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 service. This key question has been rated 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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty.

Theirs, and those of staffs’ understanding of what was considered a safety event, together with the processes in place to report and investigate these events assured us they would be addressed appropriately.

This was supported by the feedback we received from relatives and staff who raised no concerns relating to safety. One relative said, “They [staff] make [name] feel safe and which makes me feel safe, they are looked after well.” A staff member said, “They have been no accidents or incidents so far, but I would report them if there were.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored.

The registered manager responded promptly to referrals to the service they received and undertook timely assessments to ensure people received continuity of care. For example, part of one person’s care arrangements was transferred from another provider to Brand Care. The relative of the person said, “Brand Care arranged their care with me and the other agency after they could not carry on with all of [name] care calls.” Brand Care liaised with the other provider to enable a smooth transition, so the person’s care arrangements were not interrupted.

The provider understood what being safe meant for people. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live safely and free from abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider knew their role and responsibility to share concerns quickly and appropriately.

All the relatives we spoke with said they were safely supported by the service. One relative said, “They [staff and managers] ensure [name] is safe. Equally I would feel comfortable in raising a concern if I had one.”

The provider had a safeguarding policy in place. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew the safeguarding policy and procedure. They demonstrated a good understanding and awareness of the importance of safeguarding and spoke confidently about recognising signs of abuse and keeping people safe from avoidable harm. One staff member told us, “I would share safeguarding concerns with my manager in the first instance, and I know I can contact other agencies such as you [CQC] and the safeguarding team at the council.”

The registered manager knew their responsibilities to safeguard and protect people from harm and abuse. They told us the action they would take in response to a safeguarding concern which included reporting to and working with the local authority safeguarding team and notifying CQC.

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 within their capabilities.

Managers and staff worked together with relatives to understand the risk to people’s health and well-being and how best to manage them. Risks to people’s health were assessed. Care records were detailed for aspects of people’s care such as moving and handling which supported the safe use of equipment such as hoists and slings.

A relative said, “[Name] has specialist equipment. I always feel assured staff know what they are doing when moving and handling them.”

Oversight of risk included formal care reviews but as reported by relatives, also included frequent dialogue, home visits and spot checks by managers together with observations made of staff. This ensured any change in people’s needs and risks were identified promptly for care arrangements to be adapted where needed.

A relative said, “I receive very frequent phone calls with updates from managers which helps me step in too if [name] health is deteriorating.”

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

Every person we spoke with told us staff were diligent when supporting them in their home. One relative said, “[Name] bedroom is small and it contains numerous equipment. Staff are always careful and observant when using it and when they leave it is left safe and secure.”

Environmental risk assessments of people’s homes were undertaken as part of the assessment and care planning process. For example, risk assessments considered, but were not limited to, furniture, lighting and flooring.

A robust recruitment policy was in place, and followed, to ensure staff were recruited safely so, as far as possible, only those with the right skills and experience were employed.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified and experienced staff deployed. Staff received effective support and supervision. This included regular 1:1 meetings and spot checks of their practice to ensure they continued to provide care in a safe way.

People received care from a small cohort of regular staff. Where changes were made to staff deployment people were informed. Those staff most likely to be deployed in the absence of regular staff had previously been introduced and undertaken ‘shadowing’ calls with regular staff. Relatives told us staff worked with them to understand the specific needs of their loved ones.This supported continuity of care.

Staff told us the training received equipped them with the right skills to perform their roles safely. They provided positive feedback on the overall induction, initial shadowing of care calls, and the ongoing training provided.

People told us staff arrived on time and stayed for the length of time agreed and carried out everything they were required to do. One relative told us, “There are no delays. They come on time and stay for the amount of time they should and do everything they should at each call. The only time anything isn’t done is if [name] refuses.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection effectively.

Relatives told us staff wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when delivering care and disposed of it safely. One relative said, “The carers always wear gloves and aprons and wash their hands.”

Staff said they were provided with enough PPE to manage the risk of infection whilst in people’s homes and, protect themselves from the risk of cross infection.

An infection prevention and control policy (IPC) was in place. Staff had undertaken infection prevention and control training and were knowledgeable about the correct control measures to take in keeping people safe.

A medicines policy was in place, and staff had been trained in the safe administration of medicines. Care plans and risks assessments included how people’s medicines were to be managed safely and by who. However, at the time of the assessment people in receipt of care all had their medicines managed by their relatives.

Relatives confirmed they took responsibility for prompting, administering and ordering their loved one’s medicines. They did though comment staff always queried when they attended if medicines had been administered or not which they described as good practice given it wasn’t their responsibility.