Bevancare 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 changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

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

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. People and their relatives considered they were kept safe. One relative told us “It is very safe, they just seem to really know what they are doing. I don’t have any issues; they make us feel very safe.”

Staff had received training on safeguarding and were aware of how to identify and raise concerns. Concerns had been raised by staff regarding a person’s missing medication. The provider had identified potential abuse of a person in connection with medication and following a safeguarding referral, had worked with professionals to resolve this. The outcome was that the responsibility of ordering, collecting, securely storing and administering medication was passed to staff. This ensured the person remained safe and there was consistency; access to the right medication at the right time was assured.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

We identified that whilst individual risks were outlined within care plans, they were not always contained within separate risk assessments, although staff were aware of the risks and procedures to follow. Identified risks needed to be more robust and personalised for people. We discussed this with the registered manager who instigated new risk assessments, where necessary.

Health and social care professionals were also consulted if people were not always compliant with care and support, due to their complex needs or mental health diagnosis. One professional we contacted for feedback was complimentary about how risks were managed to keep people safe and told us, “They (staff) at times go above and beyond whatever is required to ensure service user’s safety or in ensuring their daily needs are met.” One care plan outlined risk reduction measures staff should follow for a person with a diagnosis of dementia, including reminding the person of why staff were there, staying calm and providing reassurance if they were distressed.

The provider assessed risks to both people and staff. For example, one package of support required 2 carers due to a person’s unpredictable behaviour; this ensured staff were not lone working and remained safe.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Environmental risk assessments were undertaken and outlined any risks staff needed to be aware of in people’s homes so that both remained safe. For example, we saw risk assessments in relation to pets and smoking.

We saw that staff received training and support to stay safe at work, this included equipment used by service users, infection prevention, fire safety and safety in people’s homes.One person told us, “We have one client that uses a hoist, I was not allowed to go into their home until I had completed the training, so it was one of the first things I got done.”

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Staff received support, supervision and development, although the provider acknowledged the frequency of supervisions did not reflect that outlined in their policy. Despite this people felt well supported, were complimentary about staff and had their needs met; staff we spoke with also spoke highly of the support they received daily.

Staff told us that they received adequate training and refresher courses, and completed a full induction when employment commenced, however training records showed that elements of mandatory training were outstanding for some staff. We brought this to the registered manager’s attention and action was taken to address the outstanding training.

Whilst staff were receiving supervision and spot checks these were not consistent for all staff. Staff we spoke with told us their competencies were checked after completing training and if management judged their knowledge to be insufficient, they would complete additional training; this needed to be more accurately recorded.

People and relatives told us that they felt confident staff were adequately trained, one person told us “I am pretty confident, because they are very efficient and know what they are doing.” Overall people and relatives felt safe about the care received. The provider had systems in place to check the identity of staff and their eligibility to work in the United Kingdom. DBS checks were also completed DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Risk assessments were completed for staff where necessary.

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 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.

Not everyone received help and support with administration of medicines and staff were clear when this was not their responsibility. Where the administration of medicines was a specified task on the care plan robust processes were in place for staff to follow. Staff recorded medication given to people via the mobile phone application; this then populated the electronic medication administration record (EMAR). One person who received help with medication told us, “It’s in the safe; there is a code, and they stay with me until it’s taken. They put it on the table, and I take it.”We saw evidence of staff going over and above to keep people safe regarding administration of medicines.