Amicable 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.

This service scored 59 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Some key documents, such as care plans and risk assessments continued to lack detailed information on the support people needed. A new audit process was in place, but it had not been used effectively to identify the ongoing areas for improvement. Sufficient learning had not taken place since the last assessment to ensure documentation met the required standard. There was no evidence this impacted people’s care.

Staff spoke positively about the management team and the support they received. Comments included that learning was discussed in team meetings and records confirmed management issued reminders about record keeping.

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 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.

No concerns were raised about people’s care. People and relatives told us they were happy with their care and had no concerns. Staff had completed training in safeguarding and knew how to raise concerns.

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

At the last assessment we identified that assessments of specific risks were not always in place. This remained the case. Generic risk assessments had been completed, however, person specific risks had not been assessed or mitigated. For example, risk assessments relating to continence care and skin integrity.

Moving and handling assessments had been completed by the registered manager. They were generic in nature and did not provide specific strategies for staff to follow which left people and staff exposed to potential risks. Where needed, occupational therapists had assessed people’s mobility and provided detailed assessments, however, they were not referenced within the providers own moving and handling plans. Staff knew people well and there was no evidence of harm to people resulting from these omissions.

There were mixed views from staff in relation to records with some saying they were fine, whilst others said they wished there was more detail.

Lone working risk assessments and emergency planning documents were in place. People had signed to say they consented to the plan of care, commenting that they and their relatives had been involved in developing care records.

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

Environmental risk assessments had been completed. This assessed any potential risks within properties and the surrounding areas, such as the location of the property and personal safety.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Some staff had not received practical training in key areas such as moving and transferring people since 2022. The provider confirmed online training had been completed, and staff practice had been observed but it had not been documented. Following our feedback the provider said this was a priority area, and they had been in contact with a trainer. Training and awareness sessions on the specific health needs of people were not provided. The registered manager said, “Staff have done their own research.”

Staff had completed a range of online training and received regular support and supervision. They said they felt very well supported by the management team.

Safe recruitment practices were followed, including pre-employment checks and references.

Ther were enough staff employed and there were no instances of missed or late calls as the registered manager stepped in to support people if needed.

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 did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

There were a number of recording discrepancies within medicines records. These were discussed with the management team who said they would look into this further. There was no information in relation to people’s preferred way to take their medicines. Generic medicines risk assessments were in place, some of which were completed in 2024 with no evidence of review.

Some improvements had been made to the recording of medicines since the last assessment including detailing the arrangements for the supply of medicine within care plans. Some improvements had been made, such as the inclusion of arrangements for the supply of medicines. Some improvements had been made to the recording of the administration of ‘as required’ medicines. Protocols were in place however some required additional information.

Staff had completed online training and competencies had been assessed.