Forget Me Not Home 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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 84 (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.

The provider created a positive safeguarding culture where people’s safety and rights were central to how care was delivered. They worked with people and health partners to understand what being safe meant to each individual, helping staff protect people from the risk of abuse, neglect and avoidable harm while still promoting independence.

Incidents and accidents were monitored, with staff encouraged to learn from them to reduce future risk. Mental capacity assessments were completed where needed, and Court of Protection approved DoLS were in place. Staff acted promptly and responsibly to keep people safe, resulting in people feeling protected, respected and well supported.

People told us they felt safe with the support they received. One person shared, “Someone comes in and makes sure I am safe, and also gives me company as someone living alone.” This showed the service had a meaningful impact on both safety and well-being.

Staff understood safeguarding principles and ensured any restrictions were in each person’s best interests, while continuing to promote choice and control. Staff received up‑to‑date safeguarding training and clear policies, including whistleblowing were in place to offer further guidance. Staff understood how to recognise and report concerns. One staff member said, “One of our staff members is a safeguarding ambassador and they are extremely passionate and keep us up to date.”

The provider involved people and their relatives in discussions about their care, and staff understood people’s risks well in day‑to‑day practice. Staff supported people in a safe and person‑centred way and were able to explain how they helped people stay safe while maintaining independence and choice.

However, the written information to guide staff was not always sufficient. Some risk assessments were not in place or lacked the detail needed to give clear guidance. This meant staff managed risks safely in practice and there had been no negative impact on people, but the documentation did not always reflect the level of understanding shown by the team. This meant there was a risk new or less‑experienced staff may not have had the information they needed to support people consistently and safely.

Several care plans lacked detail about how a person’s health conditions affected them. This meant important risk considerations and strategies to reduce those risks were not always captured in written records. The gaps in documentation limited the provider’s ability to ensure safe, consistent support and to demonstrate risks had been fully assessed.

While people were involved in decisions and staff demonstrated good practical knowledge, improvements were needed in care planning and written risk assessments to ensure risks were clearly identified to ensure they continued to be managed in a consistent and reliable way. The provider accepted this and began to update these records immediately.

The provider identified and managed environmental risks well, ensuring people received care in safe, well‑maintained surroundings. The service made sure equipment and technology were appropriate and supported the safe delivery of care.

The provider maintained safe environments through consistent monitoring, prompt responses to emerging risks and a caring, hands‑on approach supported people to feel secure and well looked after. Equipment checks and audits were completed consistently, helping the provider detect issues early and take action to prevent harm. Staff responded quickly when environmental problems arose, ensuring risks were controlled without delay.

People told us staff left their homes clean, tidy and well equipped to support safety. People gave examples of staff and management going above and beyond. One person told us, “I had an electric chair delivered and the [registered] manager actually came out and assembled it for me. What a great example of going the extra mile for [people].”

The provider demonstrated their commitment to ensuring safe and effective staffing. There were always enough highly skilled, confident and experienced staff available to meet people’s needs. People consistently received timely, well‑organised support, and our review of rotas and daily notes confirmed a very strong level of reliability and consistency. People repeatedly described the service as dependable, with care delivered exactly when and how they needed it.

Staff knew people extremely well and used their knowledge to provide compassionate, personalised care. For example, knowing how to reduce people’s distress about medical appointments and treatment and being able to chat to people about old photographs or hobbies. People told us how much these personal touches meant to them. Relatives told us the support exceeded their expectations and made a significant difference to people’s quality of life. One person described the staff team as, “Lovely, caring, friendly and trustworthy.” A relative said, “We have been totally delighted. All aspects of the service are exceptional. Staff training and back up is extremely thorough and it shows the staff are very happy in their work. All staff are extremely dedicated and genuinely care for my [family member’s] well-being. They go out of their way to maximise their physical and psychological well-being. [Staff] totally deserve the exceptional rating achieved previously.”

Staff demonstrated extremely detailed knowledge of people’s needs and were able to describe clearly how they managed risks day to day. Their confidence and insight showed the benefit of effective training, supervision and the provider’s culture of continuous learning.

Staff consistently told us they felt valued and supported by leaders, which contributed to outstanding retention and morale. One staff member said, “Nothing is ever too much trouble. Couldn’t wish for a better place to work.” Another staff member commented they had been, “Spoiled for working anywhere else.”

Staff training and development were a clear strength. The induction programme was exemplary, offering up to four weeks of shadowing with experienced colleagues. Staff told us this helped them feel confident and safe before supporting people independently. One staff member said, “I had about 4 weeks of shadowing and when I needed more supervised time with a person with complex needs, they were very accommodating.”

Ongoing competency checks of staff skills and knowledge by management, including unannounced spot checks and regular direct feedback from people receiving care, ensured high‑quality and continually improving practice. For example, staff being able to use training and equipment to quickly identify changes in people’s wellbeing and seek emergency medical advice. The registered manager also altered rotas and schedules to utilise ‘on call’ shifts to support additional ‘wellbeing’ visits to people to or to cover staff illness so there were always the correct numbers of staff available. The provider told us they promoted a varied programme of training to promote critical thinking and reflection from different perspectives so staff could better understand people’s points of view.

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.

The provider ensured medicines were managed safely and in a way that supported people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning their medicines, including when changes were needed, and worked closely with healthcare professionals to support safe and effective treatment.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff followed safe working practices and showed a good knowledge of the medicines people were prescribed. They understood what to do if a medicine error occurred and could clearly explain the process for reporting and responding to incidents.

Senior staff completed regular audits, which helped the service identify issues early and take prompt corrective action. Electronic care records enabled managers (with consent) to access recent GP notes, prescriptions and diagnoses. This meant they could explain information to people in more detail, support understanding, and follow up on health concerns. It enabled staff to ensure records were up to date, enabling a quick response to any changes made by health professionals. There was clear evidence of regular communication with GPs and other professionals to seek advice or request reviews when needed.

Care plans included links to information guides so staff could look up information about medicines. However, they did not always describe how medicines affected people for example, expected benefits, possible side effects or how a medicine might impact an existing health condition for each person. This limited opportunities for fully personalised medicines management, although staff were able to demonstrate good practical understanding when speaking with us.