UK Star Care Ltd

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.

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.

People and relatives confirmed they knew how to raise any questions or concerns they had about the care provided. The provider had a procedure for the reporting, investigation and identification of actions following incidents, accidents, complaints and safeguarding. The registered manager explained, following an investigation, any actions identified were discussed during team and supervision meetings as well as being incorporated into training.

Staff confirmed that identified actions following an investigation were shared with them. Their comments included, “Information is mostly shared in our staff meetings, our WhatsApp platform, supervisions and appraisals” and “Information is shared through staff meetings.”

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 completed an assessment of a person’s care needs using information from the person, their family and the local authority if they were funding the care. Staff would also contact any health and social care professionals involved in the person’s care to gather further information. A supervisor attended the first visit to ensure the staff member allocated to the person was the most suitable and that the care plan reflected the person’s care needs. The registered manager explained they matched the staff member to the person based on training to meet specific needs, language and cultural background.

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.

Relatives said they felt their family member’s received care that was safe. A relative told us, “[My family member] is safe from harm. They know what [my family member] needs.” The provider had a policy and procedure for recording and investigating concerns relating to the care provided. Staff completed training on safeguarding adults and children and could demonstrate their understanding of how to protect people from possible abuse. Following a safeguarding concern an investigation was completed and any lessons learned or actions for improvement were identified. The provider carried out regular audits in relation to safeguarding concerns to ensure the process was being followed and identify any trends in issues.

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.

Relatives said their family member’s care was safe and staff met their needs. Risks associated to a person’s health and wellbeing were identified and risk management plans were developed. The registered manager explained they worked with the person and their family to ensure risk management plans did not restrict the person’s rights but reduced risks. Staff were provided guidance on people’s medical conditions which included symptoms, how to support the person and when to escalate concerns. Staff were also provided with information on pressure ulcer prevention. A choking protocol was in place identifying what action to take to reduce the risks and what to do if a person started to choke. Staff completed training to understand how to provide care in a safe way. This included how to support people if they had mobility support needs and how to use appropriate specialist equipment.

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 completed risk assessments in relation to the person’s home environment to indicate if there were any possible risks and how to reduce them. Environmental risk assessments included checks on any equipment used, any cleaning products used and any other possible risks. A fire risk assessment was completed with guidance for staff on how to support the person to leave their home in case of an emergency.

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.

People and relatives confirmed that staff usually arrived on time, stayed for the agreed time and informed them if they were running late. The provider monitored arrival and departure times through an electronic call monitoring system. Staff stated they visited the same people which supported consistency in care. This was confirmed by people. The provider had a recruitment process in place which enabled them to identify suitable applicants for the role. The recruitment process included reviewing the right to work, criminal record and employment history. New staff undertook an induction and shadowed an experienced staff member. Staff completed a range of training courses and competency assessments. There were regular team and supervision meetings and staff felt supported. People and relatives felt staff had the appropriate training.

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.

People and relatives confirmed staff used the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing care. A relative told us, “Carers are clean and tidy. They wash their hands and wear gloves. They wear a uniform. Gel is used, [staff] can wash their hands around the house. The house is left clean and tidy.” Staf completed training on infection control and confirmed they were given appropriate supplies of PPE. The registered manager confirmed they undertook competency and spot checks to monitor staff member’s knowledge and compliance with best practice.

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.

People’s care plans had detailed information on the person’s medicines support needs including risk assessments and guidance for staff. Staff recorded when they administered a person’s medicines, and these records were regularly checked and audited. Staff completed training on medicines administration. The registered manager monitored staff member’s knowledge through competency assessments and spot checks.