Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm

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 69 (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 culture for safety as leaders did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Incidents and accidents had been recorded but there was not always evidence of management review. This meant it was not always possible to see what actions had been taken to prevent recurrence. It was also not always evident what actions had been taken in response to some incidents. For example, for 1 incident of alleged abuse it was not clear actions taken in response as details were not recorded. This incident had also not been notified to CQC which leaders took immediate action to address.

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.

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.

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 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.

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. Where people were prescribed ‘as required’ medicines there was not always guidance for staff to know when to administer this type of medicines. When staff were applying topical patches onto 1 person’s skin, they were not always recording where on the body the patch was applied. This can be recorded using a body map or written in care records. We found staff had not recorded on either type of record. Topical patches can cause irritation if applied repeatedly to the same area of skin. Staff had medicines training and were assessed for competence. However, records of the competence check varied in detail, so it was not always clear what had been assessed. For 1 member of staff, we found their competence had not been assessed which leaders said they would address.