North London Community Care Agency 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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to staffing.

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. We found policies and procedures for managing safety events were in line with current best practice.

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 a plan for care and support before people started using the service. The completed care plans were shared with staff to guide the delivery of care and support.

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 had a safeguarding policy and procedure to keep people safe. Staff had undertaken safeguarding training to recognise signs of abuse. Staff told us they understood how to monitor for signs of abuse and escalate concerns to keep people safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider did not 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 work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There were variable recruitment practices in place to make sure that all staff, including volunteers, were suitably experienced, competent, and able to carry out their role. A DBS check is a record of a person’s criminal convictions and cautions. The check helps employers make safe recruitment decisions.

The service cared for people with autism and learning disabilities. However, some staff had supported people without having received prior training in these areas. In addition, some staff had not completed essential refresher training to support the delivery of safe care to people. We found evidence that regular staff supervision had not always been completed to assess staff knowledge, skills, and competency, or to provide guidance for professional development and safe practice.

However, staff told us they felt supported in their role and had completed an induction programme before they were able to work independently. There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs. One person using the service told us ‘‘Yes,3 staff members come in and they take it in turns to see me’’. People told us staff arrived at the planned call time and stayed for the agreed visit length.
 

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. There were policies in place and in line with best practice guidance around infection prevention control (IPC), outbreaks and personal hygiene.

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. We found policies and procedures for managing safety events were in line with current best practice.