J.C.Michael Groups Ltd Brent

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. The rating has improved from requires improvement to good during this assessment. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to staffing. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. The provider had taken action to help ensure staff were deployed appropriately to keep people safe.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

A system was in place to report, record and monitor incidents and accidents to help support people safely. Our previous inspection found that this system was not always effective in ensuring accidents/incidents were recorded fully. During this assessment, we found the service had taken action to address this. Accidents and incidents were documented and included clear details of lessons learnt. There was an emphasis on learning lessons, preventing reoccurrence and driving improvements to improve the care and support people received.

Incidents and accidents were discussed in meetings so that staff had an opportunity to share information and learn from one another.

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.

A system was in place to report, record and monitor incidents and accidents to help support people safely. Our previous inspection found that this system was not always effective in ensuring accidents/incidents were recorded fully. During this assessment, we found the service had taken action to address this. Accidents and incidents were documented and included clear details of lessons learnt. There was an emphasis on learning lessons, preventing reoccurrence and driving improvements to improve the care and support people received.

Incidents and accidents were discussed in meetings so that staff had an opportunity to share information and learn from one another.

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.

People told us they were safe in the presence of care staff in their homes and no concerns were raised. A person said, “The carers are very respectful, knowledgeable and I feel safe and secure in their care.”

Safeguarding procedures were in place. These provided guidance about the action to take if staff had concerns about the welfare of people. Training records showed staff had completed safeguarding training.

Staff told us they felt confident reporting concerns to management and wouldn’t hesitate to do so. However, not all staff were aware that they could also report their concerns to the local authority safeguarding team if they felt they needed to. We discussed this with the registered manager who advised that staff would receive further refresher training.

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 detail about how staff should support people to help minimise the associated risk. These included personalised information and had been regularly reviewed and updated.

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

The agency assessed people’s home environments to help make sure these were safe. They had assessed risks relating to fire safety, equipment and the layout of people’s homes. They supported people and their relatives to reduce risks and look at how to ensure people and staff were safe.

Our previous inspection found a breach of regulation in relation to staffing. We previously found discrepancies records detailing care staff’s visit times. During this assessment we found that the agency had made improvements in relation to documenting care staff log in and log out times.

An electronic homecare monitoring [ECM] system was in place. This monitored care worker's timekeeping and punctuality in real time. The system flagged up if care staff had not logged a call to indicate they had arrived at the person's home. If this was the case, staff in the office would receive an automatic notification and the office would call care staff to ascertain why a call had not been logged and take necessary action there and then if needed.

We discussed the improvements the service had made with management who explained that since the last inspection they had reviewed their systems and introduced a further system to record care staff visit times and these were accurately documented. This meant there was a clear audit trail of visit times and the duration of care staff visits.

Feedback from people and relatives indicated that care staff were punctual and stayed for the duration of their visit.

Recruitment systems were in place. We looked at staff files and found that checks on the suitability of potential staff were completed. This included checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and help prevent unsuitable people from working in care services. References were obtained but it was not always clear in what capacity they had been provided and why more recent employment references were not sought by the service. We also found that recruitment forms had a section to record whether references had been verified however this was not always completed by staff. Therefore, there were instances where it was not clear whether references had been verified to check their authenticity. We raised this with management who took action and sent us further evidence of these checks. Management also advised that they would review all staff files to ensure all recruitment checks were clearly documented.

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 had completed training about infection prevention and control. Staff said they had enough PPE.

Infection prevention and control policies were in place. Staff were given the information and guidance they needed.

Effective medicines management systems were in place. Since the previous inspection, the agency had implemented an electronic system for monitoring medicines administration. People’s medicines support needs were documented in their care plan. Care staff recorded medicines administration electronically so that the office could monitor this in real time. We looked at a sample of Medicines Administration Records (MARs) and found that these were completed fully indicating that medicines had been administered as prescribed.

Staff had their competency to administer people’s medicines safely assessed to help ensure they had the skills and knowledge to do so.