You Before Me Care

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.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to fit and proper persons employed. At this assessment, we found the provider was no longer in breach of the legal regulation in relation to fit and proper persons employed.

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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The management and oversight of safety at the service was robust. The provider had systems in place to review and investigate accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns.

Feedback from staff was positive and staff told us they felt they could approach management if they had any concerns. One staff member told us, “Whenever I raise any concerns about the people I support, management always responds appropriately and professionally. I feel listened to and supported.”

The provider had systems and processes in place for pre assessment prior to people receiving care and worked with external stakeholders such as health providers. The provider made sure there was continuity of care when people moved between services.

The provider worked well with other health and social care providers and feedback we received from external healthcare providers was positive. One healthcare professional told us, “There are regular reviews, and the registered manager will phone us for updates.”

Information was shared to ensure people received consistency with their care and support. People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. This ensured the service was able to meet people’s needs.

The provider had safeguarding processes in place with policies and procedures to protect people from abuse. The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that.

Staff received appropriate training to ensure they understood how to recognise the signs of potential abuse and their responsibilities to report any accidents, incidents or safeguarding concerns. Staff told us they felt confident with reporting any concerns. Comments included, “Supervisors are approachable and always available if we need help.” We saw evidence of safeguarding being discussed in staff meeting minutes.

People and their relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns if they needed to. One relative told us, “I can’t remember having to raise a complaint, but I do have confidence that a complaint would be taken seriously and fairly treated.”

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 their relatives told us they were involved in regular reviews. External healthcare partners also told us they were involved in regular reviews and worked collaboratively with the provider to ensure people’s needs were being met and effective risk management was in place.

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

Risk assessments were in place to evaluate the safety of the environment and ensure staff were safe whilst supporting people in their own homes. This included ensuring equipment was in good working order and reporting any concerns about equipment or the environment.

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 provider had recruitment processes in place. At the previous assessment we identified that recruitment process were not adequate. The provider has made improvements, including using a digital system that helped to track the recruitment process and notify the provider of any gaps in the recruitment process.

We reviewed training records and found staff had received appropriate training and been inducted into their roles. Staff told us they received regular training and support. One staff member told us, “We receive good training and ongoing support to carry out our roles confidently. There are regular training sessions that help us stay updated and improve our skills.”

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the standard of knowledge and training provided to staff. One relative told us, “They are currently required to help daily with hoisting and repositioning [relative] and I believe they are trained well to cope with the equipment we use.”

The provider had policies and procedures in place relating to infection prevention and control (IPC). Staff had received training on the prevention and control of infection. The registered manager carried out spot checks and we saw evidence of infection prevention and control being discussed in staff meeting minutes and additional health and safety meetings that are being carried out regularly.

There were systems and processes in place for the safe management and administration of people’s medicines. Records showed that staff were up to date with their medication training. The provider had a medication policy in place and ongoing assessment of competencies for staff. Not everyone needed support with their medicines, but when they did, people received their medication from trained and competent staff.

The registered manager regularly completed audits to ensure people received their medication in a safe way. The audits were reviewed to identify any trends or patterns where medications had been missed or not given to ensure lessons were learned. We saw evidence of safe medication administration being discussed in staff team meeting minutes.