Metropolitan 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 the same. 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 we spoke with told us they had not been involved in any incidents so felt unable to comment on the learning culture at the service. Although they had trust that the management team would learn from any incidents that did occur.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt confident about reporting any concerns or poor practice to their managers. One staff member told us, “Yes, I would tell my manager, if you have an issue they make it right.”

There had been no incidents or accidents at the service which was confirmed by the registered manager. Nothing we saw indicated otherwise. The service had a policy for staff to follow should things go wrong, and we saw there was an incident form template to use should staff need to.

The registered manager told us about any learning from any incident, accident or complaint would be shared with the staff team via a team meeting or supervision meeting.

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.

People told us they were able to openly speak with staff and management. They were aware of the complaints process and felt their concerns would be addressed.

The registered manager reviewed information they had about the person, from either the local authority referral or from discussion with the person. They met the person and any family/representatives involved in supporting the person to discuss their support needs and any wishes they had about their care. From the assessment, the registered manager ensured the service could meet the support needs and the wishes of the person. People’s care plans identified their GP and any other health and social care professionals involved in their support to ensure continuity.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff 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 and relatives confirmed staff provided safe care with comments including, “Yes, I am certain [person] is safe, they have 24-hour care”, and “Yes, [person] is safe, the staff are respectful and if new staff are going to care, there is always shadowing.”

Safeguarding adults’ policies and procedures were in place. There had not been any safeguarding concerns raised since the service started operating. The registered manager understood their legal responsibility in relation to reporting any safeguarding concerns.

Staff confirmed they completed training on safeguarding adults, and they demonstrated their understanding of safeguarding. A member of staff told us, “Safeguarding means to protect the peoples from harm, we have to write everything down and report it to the 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.

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and risk assessments were in place. These assessments considered people’s physical and mental wellbeing, accessing the community, eating, drinking and moving safely. Risk assessments included details about how staff should support people to help minimise the associated risk. These included personalised information and had been regularly reviewed and updated. For example, one relative said, “Yes, around falls and leaving the property alone, it is documented,” and, “There is risk taking assessments and enough staff attend to keep [person] safe.”

Staff undertook a range of training to understand how to care for people safely. The registered manager carried out assessments of staff’s competencies and observed them providing care to help ensure this was done safely.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. People told us staff helped to keep their homes free from clutter.

The registered manager and staff told us they supported people to live safely in their homes.Where people required the use of aids for safe moving and handling risk assessments were in place to support staff to be able to use this equipment safety. Environment risk assessment were completed to ensure safety of the person.

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 received their care and support from staff who the provider assessed to be safe and suitable. The provider followed robust recruitment practices. These included interviewing candidates and checks against criminal records databases. The identities of staff were confirmed along with their eligibility to work in the UK. New staff received an induction and worked through a probationary period.

There were enough staff deployed to keep people safe. One member of staff said, “Yes, there are enough staff.” Another staff said, “We always knew our rota in advance, and know which colleague will be working with me.”

People received their care and support from trained and supervised staff. Staff received training in a range of areas including medicines, health and safety, manual handling and people’s specific health needs. Staff were supervised by registered manager and had their performance appraised annually. Staff told us their training was undertaken both in person and online.

People and relatives told us care staff followed infection control processes, including washing their hands, keeping people’s home’s clean and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).

Staff confirmed they had completed training in infection prevention and control and demonstrated a good understating of the measures to manage and prevent the spread of infection.

We saw that the provider had policies and procedures regarding the prevention and control of infection, and they kept staff up to date with relevant national guidance.

None of the people using the service required support with medicines at the time of the assessment, and records indicated no concerns in this area.

Staff told us they had received the appropriate training and were confident in administering medicines to people, when required.

The provider had effective medicines management systems in place. For example, staff had received training in medicines administration and there were relevant up to date policies in place.