Family Support Care Limited

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 75 (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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider has systems in place to record incidents. We saw actions were taken by the provider where incidents had occurred. For example, a person had been falling regularly, and this was recorded and monitored. Leaders showed us the actions that were taken around these incidents to reduce the risk of falls and protect the person in the event of a fall, including making referrals with GP and a falls referral. Leaders and staff said incidents were discussed in team meetings and records confirmed this. Staff could explain the actions they would take to report incidents. One staff member told us. “We talk about accidents and incidents in supervision and things in place to stop things happening and mitigate risks. Once we find a solution, we review to check it is working.”

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 continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Policies and procedures were in place in relation to new referrals. The service worked in partnership with local authorities and people to develop person-centred care plans. The provider explained how they worked with other care providers to ensure smooth transitions when people changed care providers.

Hospital passports were in place to provide hospital staff with key information about a person in the event of a hospital admission.

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.

A safeguarding policy was in place. Staff confirmed their awareness of safeguarding and the actions they would take if they had any concerns.

Staff told us they completed online safeguarding training and discussed safeguarding in team meetings. Leaders told us they undertake unannounced spot checks to ensure people are safe and we saw records of these checks had been completed.

The provider shared safeguarding concerns with the local authority and partners confirmed there were no open safeguarding concerns related to the service. However, the provider did not notify CQC about an incident affecting a service user, although it was reported to the local authority; The registered manager explained this was due to the incident being closed without a formal inquiry. They confirmed steps will be taken to ensure future notifications to CQC are made as required.

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.

Risk assessments were in place to inform staff how to help people to manage risks and to maintain independence. Leaders described safety measures implemented to support people, such as adapting a person’s car to ensure safety for both the person and staff during times of distress for the person whilst travelling. This enabled longer journeys with support staff, helping to reduce social isolation. Leaders said they involved people and their relatives to develop person-centred care plans and risk assessments. Relatives we spoke with confirmed their involvement with care planning.

Care plans were provided to people in formats that were accessible and tailored to their needs to help people understand and support informed decision-making.

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 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.

Staff had received mandatory training in line with the provider’s policy. This included training to meet people’s needs, for example catheter, dysphagia training and training around learning disability and autism.

Staff confirmed they received training and were encouraged complete additional training to support their own learning and development. One staff member said, “I wanted to upgrade myself with an NVQ, this company has supported and encouraged me to study, I will be graduating in my level 5 award on Friday.”

Records told us staff received regular opportunities to discuss their performance and training needs.

Most relatives thought staff were well-trained to meet their relative’s needs. One relative said, “Carers are consistent, well trained and familiar with complex medical needs.”

Another relative told us, “The carers are consistent, and they do alternate shifts… they are very caring, and they know their job, they are trained in epilepsy, CPR and know how to interpret the pulse oximeter readings.” However, one relative said the carers do not seem to have the training to look after and engage with their relative. The provider confirmed staff had received relevant training to support the person’s needs and said they complete regular unannounced spot checks to ensure staff are following the person’s care plan.

Staff were generally recruited safely. However, we noted small gaps in employment history had not been recorded fully for 3 out of 4 staff members records during the recruitment process. This put people at risk of harm through receiving care from potentially unsafe staff. The provider sent us assurances these gaps had been checked with staff since the inspection.

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.

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