Whispers Care Solutions 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

Theprovider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and consent. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People and relatives told us staff responded promptly when incidents or accidents occurred. They said staff were competent in recognising when people were unwell or required additional support.

The provider had reviewed and improved processes for recording and reporting incidents. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of these procedures and explained how they reported safety incidents to senior staff for investigation. They told us senior staff acted on incidents and shared learning through debriefs, where reflections and required changes were discussed. One staff member told us, “Any concerns or incidents are promptly reported to senior staff and documented in line with safeguarding and health and safety procedures.”

The provider had systems in place to respond to incidents both during and outside office hours. Supernumerary staff were available to provide additional support when needed. Senior staff and leaders maintained effective oversight of incidents, analysing trends and identifying strategies to reduce the risk of recurrence. They used governance meetings, daily huddles and clinical team meetings to support this work. The provider implemented further learning through additional training and support to improve staff practice. The registered manager responded positively to suggestions for improvement, including capturing more specific detail in incident reports related to restraint. They demonstrated how they would incorporate this feedback into future practice.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. People told us there was continuity of care, including when they moved between different services.

The registered manager and senior staff demonstrated good knowledge of transition planning and gave clear examples of effective plans that supported children moving towards adult life. Professionals provided positive feedback about their working relationship with the provider, noting collaborative planning and well‑managed transitions. Relatives told us about positive experiences when their family members transitioned into the service. They said the process was professionally handled and implemented smoothly.

Professionals praised the provider’s work to support successful hospital discharges through the ‘bridging service’. They told us the provider communicated effectively in fast‑paced and rapidly changing situations. They told us the provider’s responsive and organised working practices helped to reduce risk around failed discharges. Staff told us they received all necessary information to safely support people as they transitioned into the service. They explained how they reviewed key information, met families and shadowed experienced colleagues at the start of a care package. This helped to ensure they had a good knowledge of the people they supported.

The registered manager worked closely with stakeholders to assess whether prospective care package referrals were suitable for the model of care and the level of needs the service could accommodate. Where people had complex health or behavioural needs, the provider worked as part of a multi-disciplinary team of professionals to ensure they had the support systems and levels of support they required. The provider took a proactive approach in reviewing and adjusting people’s care levels in partnership with stakeholders. This helped to ensure staff could meet people’s ongoing needs.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately with professionals.

People told us they felt safe receiving care from staff. They said if they had concerns, they felt comfortable raising issues with the provider. Relatives of children who received support told us they trusted staff, telling us they worked in partnership with staff to help keep people safe.

The provider had adult and child safeguarding policies and procedures aligned with statutory guidance and local best‑practice requirements. The registered manager and senior staff understood their responsibilities in recognising and reporting safeguarding concerns to the local authority. We found examples where the provider proactively raised concerns about people’s safety and wellbeing. Records of safeguarding alerts showed the provider acted promptly to help keep people safe. Staff had completed training in safeguarding adults and children. They demonstrated good knowledge of the signs of abuse and the steps they must take if they had concerns about someone’s safety or welfare.

The registered manager and senior staff understood the legal frameworks governing restrictive practices and reviewed restrictions regularly to ensure they remained appropriate and minimised. The provider’s policies reflected best practice in least restrictive care, and leaders routinely reviewed policies and procedures to maintain this approach. Staff understood how to minimise restrictions in people’s care. They explained the boundaries of their roles and when restrictions might be necessary to protect people’s safety. Where restrictions were in place, records showed that people, relatives and professionals were involved in decision‑making to ensure measures were agreed, proportionate and least restrictive. This included examples such as locking away medicines or using physical restraint only when necessary. One staff member told us, “My understanding of least restrictive practice is making sure my client has as much independence as possible. It means not forcing anything. Working at their pace. Doing things that feels comfortable and respectful for them.”

The provider had effective processes to promote people’s home safety and security. This included non‑entry policies to ensure staff could account for people’s safety if they were not contactable at scheduled visit times. There were policies in place relating to gifts, money management and professional boundaries. These balanced the need to protect people from exploitation while allowing them to express gratitude towards staff.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and relatives told us staff were competent in supporting them to manage everyday risks related to their care. These included risks associated with medical conditions, behaviour, and moving and handling.

The registered manager, senior staff and staff explained how they worked with people to balance safety with individual’s right to make choices. They supported people and their circle of support to make informed decisions about their care. The provider ensured there were clear and defined roles and responsibilities for staff in supporting people to manage risks. This helped ensure risk management plans were clearly understood by everyone involved.

Improvements had been made following our previous inspection. Care plans and risk assessments were in place around people’s communication needs, anxiety and behaviour. Care plans were clear in identifying the actions for staff to take to reduce risks and keep people safe. For example, there were care plans for supporting people when anxious or when displaying heightened behaviour in the community. Staff were confident in how they would adopt strategies to help people remain calm, by recognising potential triggers to behaviour and deescalating situations where heightened behaviours put people or others at risk. The service promoted a positive safety culture without being over‑restrictive. There were examples where staff had successfully supported people to reduce restrictions, such as decreasing the number of staff required or enabling increased community activities by reducing anxiety around these settings. One staff member told us, “I encourage independence and only provide support where needed, making sure care is delivered in the least restrictive way while still keeping people safe.”

People also had detailed care plans outlining how to manage risks related to medical conditions, health needs and care equipment. Staff had a good understanding of the steps needed to manage and reduce known risks. Care records reflected people received appropriate support and that staff alerted leaders promptly when people’s needs changed or risks increased. This ensured timely adjustments to care and helped keep people safe.

The provider had business continuity plans that outlined how the service would respond to extreme circumstances, such as severe weather to ensure people would continue to receive care. People’s care needs had been assessed and prioritised in the event of emergency situations. There were senior staff available during and outside office hours to provide additional support. The provider had employed supernumerary staff, who were available to be called upon in an emergency situation. For example, to cover short term staff sickness or where staff were delayed during previous care visits. There were policies and procedures were in place to monitor care delivery. These included alert systems using the electronic care planning system for care visit compliance and completion of key tasks. The provider had a non‑entry policy. This helped the provider account for people’s safety and welfare if they were not contactable at planned care call times. This helped to reduce risk related to the continuity and reliability of care delivery.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider assessed people’s home environments, including risks related to falls, home safety and the equipment used during care. People told us they had the right equipment in place and that staff were competent in using it safely.

The provider checked all care‑related equipment to ensure it remained in good working order and staff had clear guidance on its safe use. For example, where people used hoists to mobilise, staff had step‑by‑step instructions to follow. The provider kept accurate records showing who was responsible for each item of equipment and when it was last serviced. Staff demonstrated good awareness of the routine checks needed to maintain equipment safety.

The provide informed and updated staff promptly when people’s equipment changed. For example, when one person was assessed as needing a new hoist sling, their care plan and care tasks were updated immediately. This helped ensure all equipment was safe and appropriate for people’s needs.

The provider ensured people received care from staff who were trained, competent and deployed in sufficient numbers to meet their needs. Senior staff had effective systems to monitor staff compliance with mandatory training and refresher updates. Staff received training aligned with best practice guidance, as well as specialist training relevant to individuals’ care and clinical needs. This included training such as the mandatory training to support people with learning disabilities, positive behavioural support and clinical competencies where required. Staff told us this specialist training improved their confidence and supported them to deliver personalised, effective care. Senior and nursing staff carried out competency assessments through direct observation to ensure staff were working to expected standards.

People told us staff were trained appropriately for their roles. They described staff as professional and knowledgeable. Professionals also reported that staff provided care to a good standard and had received specialist training aligned with people’s specific needs. They said staff were responsive and worked collaboratively with them to promote good outcomes for people. Senior staff promoted continuous professional development and provided opportunities for staff to build advanced skills. This included structured induction, regular supervision, spot checks and opportunities to gain additional qualifications in health and social care. The provider followed safe recruitment processes.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Care visits were planned through regular rotas, agreed in advance. Senior staff had strong oversight of staffing capacity, enabling them to make informed decisions about expanding the service and accepting new care packages.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

People told us that staff followed good infection prevention and control practices. They said that staff wore personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons whilst providing support with personal care.

Staff told us they had received training in infection control, and they had a good understanding of promoting good practice in hygiene and reducing risks around infections spreading.

There were infection prevention and control policies and procedures in place. These had been developed in line with best practice, which helped to ensure staff were following guidance relevant to their role.

The provider made sure that medicines were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People and relatives told us staff supported them to take their medicines as prescribed. They said staff had a good understanding of their needs in relation to medicines administration.

People’s care plans clearly described the level of support they required to manage their prescribed medicines. The provider had effective systems to monitor medicines administration and keep care plans up to date. The electronic care planning system alerted senior staff if medicines were not administered at planned times, helping ensure people received the right medicines at the right time and reducing the risk of missed doses. The provider had robust procedures to oversee the management of medicines. People’s individual arrangements were documented in their care plans. This helped to ensure it clear who was responsible for these tasks and when staff should raise concerns about medicines supply. Where the provider took additional responsibility for ordering medicines, additional checks and systems were in place to ensure people always had the correct supply.

Where people were prescribed medicines to manage anxiety or behaviour, care plans set out clear strategies to minimise their use. Staff were instructed to use de‑escalation and positive support approaches first, relying on medicines only as a last resort. Staff embraced this approach. They told us they followed strategies set out in people’s care plans and the use of medicines was kept to a minimum, and only to promote people’s safety.

The provider had developed medicines policies in line with best practice guidance. This detailed procedures around topical creams, homely remedies, time‑sensitive medicines and “as required” (PRN) medicines. Staff demonstrated a thorough knowledge of best practice in administering medicines within community‑based settings, helping ensure people were supported to manage their medicines safely. The provider investigated all medicines‑related incidents to evaluate and improve their systems. They reported concerns to relevant professionals and worked with people to resolve issues related to medicines supply, storage and administration. Learning from incidents was shared with staff to promote safe and consistent practice.