Your Quality Care Services Limited (East Grinstead)

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 remained 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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff told us they knew how to, and felt comfortable, raising concerns with the registered manager. One staff member said, “Any concerns or feedback can be raised at any time. I have supervisions every 3 months and regular spot checks. We also have staff meetings where we can all voice our concerns, issues and give feedback.” Another staff member told us, “My registered manager is very clear when I speak that it is taken seriously. When I say anything that’s concerning me regarding the clients or myself, it’s acted upon.”

People told us staff worked to keep them safe, and relatives confirmed this. A relative said, “I am confident that I can contact [the registered manager] with any concerns I might have and that they will respond promptly.”

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents within the service. A new incident and accident reporting form had recently been introduced, which included a dedicated section to capture lessons learned.

Safety incidents were discussed across all services, enabling the provider to identify themes, share learning, and implement improvements to enhance the quality and safety of care for people using the service.

The service made sure they had a system in place to support safe transactions between services.

The provider had an established paper-based system in place containing key information about people, including next of kin details, allergy information, and medical history. This was available in case of an emergency hospital admission.

The registered manager told us they raised any health concerns with people or their relatives. As most people were independent, the service did not directly organise appointments with health and social care professionals.

The service worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The management team understood their responsibility to notify and work with relevant statutory agencies should safeguarding events occur.

Staff attended safeguarding training in their induction and had access to regular refresher training.The provider had an up-to-date safeguarding and whistleblowing policies.

People told us staff worked to keep them safe, and relatives confirmed this. A relative said, “I feel strongly that [person] is safe and cared for in [person’s] familiar surroundings.”

Staff told us they thought people were safe receiving care from the service.One staff member said, “I do believeour clients are as safe as anyone can be.” Another staff member told us, “I do believe they are safe because of the good quality of care provided to themmaking them feelsafe.”

The service did not always ensure that documentation, including risk assessments, was up to date and accurately reflected people's needs.

Risk assessments in place were not always sufficiently detailed and did not provide enough information on people’s conditions and the support needed to remain safe. For example, a risk assessment for a person with continence needs stated there was no risk. This meant staff did not have clear guidance on the potential risks associated with the person’s continence care. The provider responded to our feedback and reviewed people’s risk assessment.

Relatives confirmed they would speak with the service if people’s needs changed.

Staff told us they knew people well.

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

Staff confirmed they knew how to report maintenance concerns in people’s homes.

Risks associated with a person’s home environment were assessed before staff started supporting people in their homes.

Relatives confirmed staff used the equipment safely. Records confirmed staff received training in manual handling.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development.

Staff told us they liked their jobs and felt supported by the management.A staff member said, “I feel proud to work for this organisation. I believe we provide safe, person-centred, and compassionate care, and I feel well supported to carry out my role to the best of my ability.”

People and relatives confirmed staff were on time. If a staff member was going to be late, the provider ensured the person was informed of it. Relatives praised the service for being responsive. A relative said, “They're very adaptable. If I ever ask for time change, they are accommodating.”

Records confirmed staff had regular supervisions.

The provider did not always follow their policy regarding staff’s recruitment process. In response to our feedback the provider changed their processes to ensure all employment history is requested and checked for any gaps.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection.

Staff confirmed they had access to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). A staff member said, “I have the PPE I need. I always carry gloves, apron and shoe covers. All PPE is in the main office and any PPE that I think is running low, I report to my manager.”

People and relatives told us the staff always left the property clean. A relative said, “All carers have respected [person’s] environment and maintained it cleanly and tidily.”

Staff received infection control training, and the provider had an up-to-date infection control policy in place.

Some elements of people’s medicine administration were not safe. People’s records did not always provide staff with comprehensive information regarding their ‘when required’ medicines so staff would know when to offer these medicines and how to record when these medicines had been administered. Accurate medicine records ensure people always receive their medicines as required and reduce the risk of medicines being given inappropriately.

The provider started taking action during the assessment to address this shortfall and strengthen staff training.

Records showed people had received their routine medicines as prescribed. People and relatives did not raise concerns relating to medicine management. A relative said, “[Person’s] medication is always given to them on time at each visit at the correct time.”

Staff received medicine training and their competencies were checked.