Love 2 Care Homecare Services 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 as 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. We identified concerns around staff recruitment and rota planning, and the provider was in breach of the legal regulation to notify CQC of other events.

However, improvements had been made to ensure people’s care planning information contained relevant information about their needs. Staff were trained to do their role, and a system was now in place to check staff competency.

This service scored 62 (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.

Systems were in place to record and monitor incidents and leaders were proactive in making sure people were safe following an incident. For example, we saw the service made a referral to the Occupational Therapy team to identify if equipment was required for a person. The provider said they carried out accident and incident audits and shared learning with partners and staff. Staff knew how to report incidents and said they were made aware of incidents and any changes made to improve people’s safety.

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. The provider said they assessed all new referrals to ensure they could support the person safely and to identify any risks. Staff said they were made aware of new clients and had an opportunity to read their care plans. The provider said on occasions where people have moved to other services, they have shared care plans and risk assessments with those new providers to ensure a smooth transition for people.

The provider did not always work well with people and other healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care.

The provider had failed to notify CQC of safeguarding incidents to provide CQC with insight into risks in the service. We saw the provider had raised 15 safeguarding incidents with the local authority’s safeguarding team between January 2024 and January 2025. However, these had not been notified to CQC as required by legislation. The provider said they had misunderstood when they needed to send safeguarding notifications about abuse and confirmed they would ensure notifications would be sent to CQC in the future.

However, processes were in place for staff to raise safeguarding concerns, and the provider notified other appropriate authorities where concerns had been raised. Staff we spoke with had received safeguarding training and were confident about the actions they would take to raise any safeguarding concerns.

People and relatives told us the provider had explained about their policies protecting them from abuse during their first meeting with the provider. One person said, “The manager explained their safe practices and told me to contact them if we had any concerns.” .

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’s care planning information included relevant details about their needs and how risks were managed. Staff were aware of people’s care plans and risks.

Processes were in place to review and update care plans when needed.

One relative we spoke with confirmed they were involved with reviews of their relative’s risk assessment and care plan. They told us “[staff] always let me know if there is a change with family member. [relative] had an issue with the catheter, they rang to tell me that they had organised the district nurse to visit”

People spoke positively about how they felt their risks were managed. One person told us, “I couldn’t ask for better, they chat to me, they monitor that I have taken my medication.” And another person said, “Carers encourage me to use my stick, so I’m steady on my feet, and they walk close to me giving support if I need it. They make sure my hand is dry so that my stick doesn’t slip out of my hand.”

The provider told us how they helped a person manage risks so they could be more independent in their own home and in the community. The person no longer requires staffing support.

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 completed environmental risk assessments of people’s homes to ensure support was provided safely and staff were aware of the risks. Staff we spoke with said they would report any concerns about risks in the environment to the office. One staff member said, “We check for hazards, if I see there is something that is not safe, I take a photo and send it to the office.”

The provider did not follow their own recruitment policy to ensure new staff were recruited safely or assessed potential risks around newly recruited staff where there were concerns identified following the completion of a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. The provider took immediate action to ensure staff were safe to work with their service users during the inspection and CQC saw evidence of this.

Staff rotas were not planned to ensure people were getting their care at the time planned. Some staff were scheduled to do back-to-back calls without allowing for travel time between calls. One staff member said this impacted on their day and meant they finished their shift late. Most people we spoke with told us time-keeping was not an issue, some people said they were told by the office if staff were going to be late, however some people said they had to call the office to find out what was happening if a staff member did not arrive as expected. Staff and leaders told us there was a system in place to call the office if they were going to be more than 45 minutes late for the next call and to make sure people receive time critical medicines. We looked at 4 staff supervision records and found 3 staff did not have supervisions within the timescales identified in the provider’s supervision policy.

However, staff had the required training to do their role and spot checks took place by the provider to check staff competency. Staff told us the face-to-face training was very good. People said staff had been trained how to use equipment and were good at dealing with people who had dementia and mental health issues.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff had completed infection control training, and the provider confirmed the systems in place to ensure staff were provided with enough personal protective equipment (PPE) to perform their role. Staff told us the provider checked they were following the infection prevention and control policy by undertaking unannounced spot checks and observations of practice. People and relatives told us staff followed safe working conditions by wearing gloves and aprons and changing them when they went to another task.

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

Relevant information was in place to help staff understand how to support people with their medicine. The provider completed regular audits of medicines administrations.

Systems were in place to alert staff to changes to people’s information. Staff told us they had received medicines training, and they had the information they need about how to help people with their medicines.

However, although there was no evidence people had received time critical medicines late, there was a risk people who took time critical medicine may not always receive this medicine on time because travel between calls had not been considered when planning the rota. The Registered Manager said they had a system in place to ensure people received time critical medicines if staff were delayed and staff confirmed their awareness of the system.