Three Sisters Community Care LLP

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

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.

Staff we spoke with could not recall changes being implemented as a result of an incident or investigation but did state that calls, were monitored and travel times were adjusted to ensure staff could attend calls on time and provide care the people without rushing.

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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their families told us they felt safe; one relative said, “It’s a relief knowing that they are both safe and being well looked after”. Staff also told us how they would report safeguarding concerns, although several had not needed to use the safeguarding process in practice.

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.

A person described how staff reduced risk while maintaining independence, “They leave me with everything that I can possibly need within reach”. Relatives also described staff identifying pressure damage and involving district nurses.

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

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

At the time of the assessment a number of staff had not completed required training within the defined timeframes, this exposed staff and the people they supported to potential risk. In particular Basic Life Support and Medicines training had not been completed by all staff however following the assessment leaders confirmed all required staff had since completed their required training.

People reported reliable calls from familiar staff; one person said, and “The care is exemplary! We have no issues-none! We use their electronic care records` so we know who is coming, but [person] is very safe as they make them feel like one of the family. [Person] is [age] and they also use the hoist safely, get [person] into [person’s] wheelchair and take them into the garden or to the shops for their independence. I’d ring one of the sisters if there were any problems but there are no problems.”

Staff we spoke with described feeling confident and supported to complete training, in addition they told us they were offered additional training as upon request or if people’s needs changed.

The provider also shared evidence of additional training which was completed as part of regular meeting to check people’s understanding and keep staff up to date.

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 made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

A relative said, “The carers do the meds and never miss”. Staff described electronic medicine records, competency checks and escalation if they had any concerns or errors.