UK Specialist Care 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.

This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated good .

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives knew how to make a complaint and felt confident that if they raised concerns the registered manager would take appropriate action to resolve the matter.

The registered manger told us that there had not been any safeguarding, incidents or accidents in many years. The incident and accident record we received were blank and supported the information the manager told us.

The local authority told us, ‘I am not aware of any current open safeguarding concerns we have about this provider.”

Relatives told us they were responsible for supporting people transition between health care services andfrom hospital back to their home and worked with other health care services.

The provider told us they work with individuals and their relatives, to safely support people with transitions from health services to help people be safely supported at home.

One health care professional told us they were not aware of any safeguarding concerns related to the service.

The provider had systems in place to work with people and partners including the local authority to establish safe systems of care.

Relatives spoke positively about staff; they told us they trusted and felt safe with care workers. A relative said, “I absolutely, absolutely feel safe. I’ve never had any concern about that.”

Staff told us they undertook training to understand how to safeguard people from abuse. The registered manager told us the safeguarding policy was discussed with staff regularly in supervisions and the policy was shared with staff within news bulletins.

Although there had been no safeguarding investigations at the service, there were systems in place and the management team and care staff had good understanding of their responsibilities. Staff completed safeguarding training and were confident the registered manager would respond immediately to any concerns they raised.

There were policies and procedures for safeguarding people and whistleblowing in place. These provided guidance about the action to take if staff had concerns about the welfare of people. Training records showed staff had completed safeguarding training and this was regularly updated.

Relatives gave us mixed views about how risks were assessed and managed. A relative told us they had opportunities to discuss their family member’s care, but another relative was not aware of their relatives care plan or schedule of care. Comments included, “Yes, [involved] in anything that concerns [person]. Nothing’s changed for a while. It’s a yearly review, [person] is involved in it.” Another comment was, “[Person] doesn’t have a care plan, the workers had a book they filled in with their times, then they stopped.”

The registered manager told us, “We always ensure people are involved in making decisions around their care we put people first.” We asked for examples of how the registered manager involved people but none were provided.

Staff knew the people they supported well and knew how to support them to stay safe.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Care plans and risk assessment lacked clear guidance for staff to follow on the management of specific health conditions and how the risk should be managed. We found care plans lacked detail and had not been regularly reviewed, one care plan had not been reviewed since 2020.

People were supported in their own homes.

Staff told us that the provider conducted unannounced spot checks, and these checks included checks of the environment.

The provider did not complete environmental risk assessments within people’s homes during their initial assessment to check if it was safe for staff to carry out care in a safe environment. The spot check form checked health and safety risk however, was not a detailed check of people’s environment.

People were cared for by staff who they were familiar with and who knew their needs well. People’s relatives told us staff had the right training and skills to care for their relative. Relatives said staff attended their care calls on time and were notified if a care worker was running late, relatives also confirmed staff stayed for the agreed duration.

Staff confirmed they had completed a range of mandatory training to enable them to meet the needs of the people they cared for. Staff had worked with one individual and could tell us their needs and how they supported them.

The provider did not always follow their own policies and processes for recruitment of staff. We requested to review 4 staff files. However, we only received 2 staff files for review. There were gaps in some of the pre-employment checks, there were 2 character references however the checks did not include a professional reference from previous employment. Gaps in employment were very vague. The provider had assured all other system checks, these included checks on their identity, their right to work in the United Kingdom and the Disclosure and Barring Service check for criminal convictions. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

The provider had a training matrix to manage staff training records. However, staff had not completed all training required to support the needs of people using the service, including epilepsy and training in aspiration. Staff had also not received all mandatory training, these included Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and equality and diversity training.

A relative told us, “They bring latex gloves with them, occasionally they run out and the agency is slow replacing them, a bit of a hiccup sometimes so I supply my own. I put a folder on the wall with masks if they want to wear them, which they don’t, and they have sensible shoes.”

Staff had sufficient PPE (personal protective equipment) to provide safe care.

The provider managed the risk of infection. Staff had received infection prevention and control training and had access to appropriate personal protective equipment [PPE].

At the time of our assessment the provider was not supporting anyone with medicines. Staff received training on administering medication.

At the time of our assessment the provider was not supporting anyone with medicines. Staff received training on administering medication.

At the time of our assessment the provider was not supporting anyone with medicines. Staff received training on administering medication.