Prime Way Care Ltd London

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 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.

The registered manager told us there was a procedure for staff to report incidents, accidents and other issues of concern. The registered manager and senior staff completed investigations the reported events and identified actions. The actions could include reviewing care plans and risk assessments, identifying training for staff or making referrals to other health and social professionals.

Staff confirmed the outcomes of investigations were shared with them. A staff member commented, “When things go wrong, we always report and record the incident. Information is shared with the relevant staff and management, and we learn from it through refresher training and team meetings.”

Staff demonstrated they understood how to report any incidents or concerns to senior staff and felt confident in doing so. The provider reported issues to the local authority and worked with them to ensure people received safe and appropriate care.

The registered manager understood the importance of being open and transparent with people, relatives and staff when thing go wrong.

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.

People and relatives said staff supported them with accessing other services such as contacting and/or visiting healthcare professionals.

The registered manager explained, following a referral of a care package from the local authority, they were provided with information on a person’s support needs. Senior staff involved the person and their relatives in an assessment of the person’s care needs to ensure these reflected the information from the local authority. If they identified any different support needs, they worked with health and social care professionals to ensure these could be met including getting the right equipment in place.

The registered manager told us senior staff went to the first care visit to introduce the staff member who would be supporting the person. People received an information pack at the start of their care package providing guidance on how to contact the office, raise concerns and what the person could expect from the service.

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 relatives told us they felt safe when care was provided by the service. A person told us, “I think the carers are OK, I have no problems. I feel safe. There's no abuse or anything like that.” People and relatives confirmed they knew who to contact if they had any concerns.

The registered manager explained they investigated safeguarding concerns and worked with the local authority to protect people from possible harm. Staff completed training on safeguarding adults and understood how to raise concerns if they felt someone was experiencing abuse.

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.

People and relatives told us they felt safe when care was being provided. Their comments included, “[Family member] feels safe with the carer, they are comfortable with them. There's nothing untoward”, and “I feel safe with the carer. There's not been any inappropriate language or anything like that.”

The registered manager explained during the initial assessment of support needs and during care plan reviews, the field supervisor discussed possible risks with the person and relatives. Risk assessments were developed to provide guidance of staff for identified risks and how they could be mitigated whilst meeting the person’s wishes about their care.

The provider had a positive risk policy. This provided guidance on how risk assessments could be developed to support people to be as independent as possible or undertake activities they enjoyed but ways to reduce risk were identified.

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

Personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) were developed to provided staff with guidance on how to support the person in case of an emergency. The PEEPs were translated into the person’s preferred language they could understand what staff would do in case they needed to evacuate their home. The provider had a fire safety policy. There was fire safety guidance for staff, people being supported and their families.

The provider had also developed guidance on supporting people who smoked. There was information on how to safely support people who required the use of oxygen. The provider undertook risk assessments of the person’s home environment and if any issues were identified they were discussed with the person and actions indicated to reduce the risk. A risk assessment was also completed in relation to any cleaning products used by staff during the visit.

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. The process for recording the times of care visits was not always robust.

People and relatives told us the staff usually visited at the agreed time and let them know if they were running late. A person said, “The carer has not been late, but they will ring to let me know if they are running behind.”

The records for the arrival and departure times for visits were analysed as part of the assessment. The majority of visits indicated as happening as planned but issues were identified with how the information was recorded. The records showed that some staff were not always provided with enough travel time between visits and staff were not always recording their departure time. These issues were raised with the registered manager who investigated the issues. The registered manager explained that some of the visits without travel time were located nearby and where staff had not recorded the end of the visit this had been done by office staff on their behalf. The registered manager acknowledged the issues with the recording of visits and shared an action plan to monitor and make improvements to the electronic call monitoring system.

People and relatives felt the staff who visited had appropriate training with comments including, “[Staff member] seems to know everything. They are very knowledgeable”, and “I think they may have been trained. They seem to know what they're doing.”

The provider had a recruitment process which enabled them to assess the suitability of applicants. The checks carried out included their ability to work in the United Kingdom, proof of identify, criminal records and references from previous employers. New staff completed an induction and training before they undertook shadowing an experience staff member before starting to provide care. Staff completed a range of training, had their competency assessed and were support through regular supervision and team meetings.

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 confirmed staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing care.

Staff confirmed they had completed training on infection prevention and control (IPC) and they were supplied with enough personal protective equipment (PPE) to use during care visits. The registered manager confirmed staff completed competency assessment to review their understanding of IPC best practice. As part of spot checks, senior staff carried out observations of staff to ensure they followed IPC procedures. Staff received additional information on infection control best practice during team meetings and in quarterly newsletters.

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.

People’s medicines were administered safely and as prescribed. People and relatives told us they were happy with the staff administering their medicines. A person told us, “Staff prompt me with my medication and puts it in the tub and then hands it to me. They help with my cream on my legs. They pick up by prescriptions from the pharmacy.”

Staff undertook training on the management of medicines with their understanding and skills assessed. Staff completed records when they administered people’s medicines. These records were regularly audited and if any issues were identified appropriate action were identified and implemented.