Empress Social 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 was the first rating since the service was registered on 30 July 2020.

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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

We noted that they had different approaches to help embed a positive learning culture. Staff and the management team accepted that mistakes occurred and ensured that any mistake or incident was analysed to establish the root cause or causes of the incident so that measures could be put in place to minimise the risk of the same issue occurring again.

The registered manager told us how they strive to learn and develop both as individuals and as an organisation and operate a no-blame culture within the company. This approach encouraged staff members to be comfortable about speaking out when things go wrong. The registered manager engaged in reflective practice with staff to discuss any mistakes or incidents and discuss lessons learnt. We saw that alongside mandatory training specialist training was also available to meet the more complex needs of people in their care. For example, for people with epilepsy, specialist training was provided.
 

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.

The provider demonstrated that safe systems and pathways were maintained during any transitions. For example, prior to them taking over any new support, they contacted the previous care provider to discuss the transition to ensure both a smooth transition and that people received continuity of care.

The service ensured that the people in receipt of support and their families were involved in the care planning process and that all agencies and organisations were kept informed and included with any proposed plan. Transitions were planned and managed at a speed that suited the individual, often in bite sized steps. For example, if a person’s care was being taken over by another care provider, the person would be involved and part of the process. Information would be shared with the new provider who would shadow and work alongside the existing provider until all concerned were happy for the transfer to be completed.
  
 

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 were protected from the risk of harm because the provider had measures in place to help keep people safe. The registered manager told us the safety of the individuals they supported was central to their mission and culture.
We saw in care plan and risk assessments, very detailed and specific information relating to individuals. The registered manager talked about both a duty of care and duty of candour, and how this was a key part of their working. They told us they are aware that the potential for abuse or harm to occur is very real and so it is taken very seriously and discussed in team meetings. Staff were trained and understood how to monitor for signs of abuse and escalate concerns to the registered manager.

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.
We saw that people were supported to take informed risks. So, for example, if a person wanted to do something but a risk was identified this was done safely. The person would be given information to enable them to decide whether they wanted to take the risk or not. For example, participation in several sporting activities. The registered manager told us, “We take a positive stance to individuals taking risks within a supported framework. No activity or goal is unobtainable for our individuals in receipt of support, and we actively put in additional support and work with external providers to ensure that individuals can undertake activities that contain elements of risk.” This approach ensured people were not dissuaded from doing things they enjoyed, but in a more supportive way.
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.
The provider had measures in place to help ensure that people’s environments were as safe as they could be, while respecting that the places where their staff worked were people’s homes. All home environments had risk assessments completed to help identify any specific risks to people they support.
The registered manager told us to help maintain people’s safety in the home where they used any specialist equipment, they consulted with families to ensure that the equipment was properly maintained and kept in good working order. People’s families told us equipment was regularly serviced and maintained.
 

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.
The provider had robust systems and processes to ensure the recruitment of staff was both safe and effective to enable them to collaborate with people who may be vulnerable.

We noted that staff completed an initial three-week induction, after which if further training was required, this was available. Training was provided by an online local training provider. Induction training included all mandatory topics including safeguarding, moving, and handling and the safe administration of medication. Staff were then required to shadow more experienced staff, before working with the people Empress supported. Additional refresher training was completed on an annual basis. Staff had regular competency assessment to ensure they had skills and experience to support people safely.

Staff were allocated to support specific individuals based on those most suited and experienced required to meet the person’s needs. Staff were introduced to people and their families prior to working with them to ensure a stranger never turned up to support them.

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.

The provider had infection prevention and control [IPC] measures in place to help people stay safe. Staff completed online IPC training as part of their induction. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment [PPE] for example gloves, hand sanitizer and masks if required. In addition to the IPC training there was also an IPC control champion who provided additional support as required. Family members told us staff used gloves when providing personal care and had hand sanitiser and aprons.

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.

The provider had a safe system in place to manage and monitor the safe administration of medicines. All staff completed online medication training as well as face to face in person training. Staff were assessed prior to being allowed to administer medicines.

The registered manager told us how they ensured people were not over medicated and followed Stop over medicating people [STOMP] guidance. Electronic medication administration records [EMAR system was in place to support safe medicines management.] This was audited on a weekly and monthly basis to ensure; medicines errors would be quickly identified and rectified. We saw that medication administration records were completed in the home by staff and then brought to the office to be audited.