Caring Care 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 Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 their relatives said the registered manager responded promptly to situations, and staff confirmed they could raise issues at any time and felt listened to. A relative told us, “My [person’s name] is prone to falling and will insist on moving around the house when [person’s name] is on her own. The carers always make sure there is nothing in [person’s name] way to trip up”.

The provider’s systems to review accidents and incidents were effective. Where accidents and incidents occurred, we saw this was logged, monitored and shared with the staffing teams to ensure lessons were learnt. Staff told us learning opportunities were provided and training was delivered where requested and required.

Both the provider and staff were passionate about identifying areas for improvement, and continuous learning was embedded into everyday practice. Where poor practice was identified, or when incidents occurred, the provider took prompt action and lessons were learnt and shared. For example, where a person had a fall, staff took appropriate action with guidance and support from the management team. However, although analysis of accidents and incidents was done to ensure correct action had been taken, care plans were not always updated when people experienced falls. The registered manager told us a care plan audit was in place, and these issues would be addressed. An accident and incident policy was in place that detailed the process to manage accidents and incidents.

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. There were systems in place to ensure people were supported safely. Where people’s health needs had changed, the systems ensured escalation to a relevant health professional.

People’s needs were assessed before they received a service, and these assessments formed the basis of their care plan. People and relatives told us they were involved in the initial assessment and with the care plan process. The registered manager told us they completed face to face assessments and involved people, family members and external health or social care professionals. Pre-service assessments were detailed and led to person centred care plans and risk assessments, with structured review cycles and service monitoring visits.

Partners reported that Caring Care had safe and reliable systems for managing pathways and transitions, demonstrated by a good concern‑to‑package ratio and consistently responsive practice when issues arose. They also highlighted the provider’s high success rate in delivering reablement support that safely reduced or removed the need for ongoing care, evidencing well‑managed pathways and effective, risk‑aware transitions.

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 told us they felt safe receiving support from Caring Care staff. One person told us, “Yes, very safe. They make sure all my doors are locked, they make sure I have my [assistive technology] and check that I am comfortable.” A relative told us, “They reassure [person’s name] and introduce themselves, they put music on and they talk to [person’s name]. [Person’s name] feels safe with them.”

Staff recognised how to identify signs of abuse and knew how to raise any concerns. Staff had the relevant training in relation to safeguarding and this was up to date. There was a safeguarding tracker in place, and the registered manager reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority as required with appropriate actions taken where necessary. Safeguarding concerns were tracked and monitored for themes and trends and learning was shared with staff. The provider operated a proactive safeguarding system, using key‑word searches within care notes to identify any potential incidents that may not have been formally reported. This ensured all safeguarding concerns were promptly recognised and addressed.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks.

People’s individual risks were reviewed by staff, leaders and specialist teams where needed. While risks were identified and general guidance was available for staff, some care plans and risk assessments lacked person‑specific detail. For example, where people were at risk of falls or there were concerns around skin integrity. There was no negative impact on people because staff demonstrated strong knowledge of their needs, and the registered manager took immediate action to update and personalise these plans. Other care plans we reviewed were detailed and comprehensive, but improvements were needed to ensure consistency across all documentation. Staff were able to clearly explain how they kept people safe and supported them to manage risks effectively.

People and families were actively involved in assessments, care planning and reviews, and they said they were kept informed when needs changed. Family members confirmed they had contributed to risk management, including decisions about equipment and medicines, and felt listened to by the registered manager. People did not raise any concerns about being involved in the management of risk. One person told us, specifically in relation to moving and handling equipment, “I feel very safe when they are moving me.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Risks associated with people’s individual environments were assessed before staff started supporting people within their homes. People and relatives told us a safe environment was maintained in their homes by staff. One relative told us, “Yes, they transfer her and they are very good at moving and handling.”

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. Staff were recruited safely. This included checking their identity, their eligibility to work in the UK, obtaining at least 2 references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Staff had regular opportunities to meet with managers and discuss their role and training needs. Staff had received relevant training in looking after people. Staff completed an induction when they started working and ‘shadowed’ experienced members of staff until they were assessed as competent to work unsupervised. We saw regular staff rotas. One person told us, “I am reasonably happy with how I am looked after by my carers; they are very respectful all of the time.” One relative told us, “They have never missed a call, and they are very good with coming on time, my [person’s name] is never rushed.” Some people told us staff would call to inform them of any lateness.

The provider had a live dashboard audit system which enabled them to monitor completed calls, ensuring they were on time, medicines were completed and all activities were signed off.

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 told us staff wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and staff disposed of it themselves. A person told us, “Yes the carers wear gloves and aprons and sometimes a mask.”

The provider had a policy in place for Infection Prevention and Control (IPC). IPC audits were completed monthly. The provider’s training matrix showed staff had received IPC training and staff told us they had access to PPE. Competency and spot checks were carried out to ensure staff were complying with policies. Following feedback from people regarding staff’s white uniform looking unkempt, the provider took this on board and changed staff uniform to blue.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.Effective systems were not consistently in place to ensure the safe administration of ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines. For people prescribed PRN medicines, clear and detailed protocols were not available. This meant staff did not always have the necessary guidance to administer these medicines in line with prescriber instructions, and we could not be assured people were consistently receiving their medicines as intended.We also found diabetes management plans lacked sufficient detail to guide staff in supporting people’s diabetes care safely and consistently. This put people at increased risk of not receiving appropriate monitoring or timely intervention to manage any fluctuations in their blood sugar levels.

In addition, for people who were prescribed flammable creams, this information was not clearly documented within their care records, including in cases where individuals were also known to smoke. This omission meant staff did not have clear guidance on how to minimise associated fire risks.

For people prescribed time-specific or time‑sensitive medicines for Parkinson’s disease, these were not consistently administered at the exact times stated in their care plans. Parkinson’s medicines rely on precise timing to maintain symptom control, and inconsistent administration meant the medicines may not have been as effective as intended. The registered manager escalated this to the local Parkinson’s team during the inspection to seek further guidance and ensure improvements were made.

We highlighted these concerns to the registered manager during the inspection. They took immediate action to address the shortfalls and amended the relevant documentation on the same day. This prompt response demonstrated their proactive approach and commitment to improving the safety of medicines management in the service. Staff had received medicines training and had their competency assessed, which meant there were processes in place to support safe medicines administration once accurate guidance was available.

People were content with the support they received with medicines administration. One person told us, “I have a blister pack and they double check it every Monday. I get them at the right times.” A relative told us, “The carers are responsible for giving medication and they are always given when they should be.”