Friendly Support Services 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

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 63 (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 there was an eagerness to learn and improve the service throughout our assessment. Managers and leaders were receptive to feedback and embedded changes promptly.

Prior to our assessment, managers were proactive in identifying issues, themes and trends and working with people, their relatives and staff to improve people’s care.

Learning from incidents or events was effectively communicated to staff so they were clear on what actions they should take to prevent recurrence. This needed to be fully embedded in response to all types of incidents as we found some concerns around responses to medication errors.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not always make sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider ensured there was ample information available for staff that was clear, detailed and person centred. This could be shared if people moved to other services.

However, we found shortfalls in relation to emergency situations. People did not have hospital passports, which aid a smoother transition in an emergency should someone require paramedics or hospital admission, or Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) which support an effective evacuation in an emergency, such as a fire. This was highlighted to the provider, and they rectified this in a timely manner. The hospital passports and PEEPs that were produced and shared with us were of a good standard.

The provider did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately.

Providers have a statutory duty to notify us of certain events and incidents of concern. We found that we had no notifications from the provider and saw incident records during our assessment that we should have been notified about. This feedback was shared with managers at the service and they acknowledged their error and showed understanding of the importance of doing this in the future.

Some staff were not clear on their role in safeguarding processes. Some felt that because they were within people’s homes alongside relatives, friends or partners, this was their responsibility, instead of their own. This was shared with the provider who have assured us they will take action to rectify this. We found that there was no evidence people had been harmed or put at risk of harm. Most staff were very knowledgeable about the importance of safeguarding and their role in this. Most staff were able to recite aspects of their training in detail, including how to identify potential abuse and what to do.

There were clear safeguarding processes in place and staff had received training to support them to fully understand these, and their understanding and competency was assessed by leaders.

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.

We found that risk assessments and care plans were robust and thorough. Staff had access to information and guidance should they need it. Where someone wanted to achieve a goal, or maintain hobbies and interests, the provider worked with them and their relatives to plan and prepare for this so it could be achieved in the safest way.

Staff had good knowledge of people using the service and how to involve them in day-to-day decision making around risks. In addition, staff told us that they were always able to contact managers for advice and support if needed.

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

The provider was supporting people within their own homes, some of which they shared with their relatives. The provider still supported people to maintain safe equipment, such as moving and handling equipment servicing, and weekly checks on people’s fire or smoke detectors.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development.

The provider used both in person and online training to ensure staff’s knowledge and skills remained of a good standard. However, at the time of the assessment, there was a high number of staff working who had out of date training. The risk was minimal due to them being long-standing staff members. By the end of the assessment, training compliance had improved and was at 95%.

In addition, supervisions and appraisals were not always completed regularly. The provider was in the process of upskilling two team leaders so that they could complete supervisions and appraisals.

The lack of scheduled and structured supervisions and appraisals had not had an impact on staff, who largely fed back that they felt supported regardless, as managers were always contactable and approachable.

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.

During our assessment, we were not able to directly observe staff’s use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as gloves or aprons, however staff were knowledgeable about what to use, when to use it and how to dispose of it.

Relatives who lived with people using the service told us that staff were efficient with their use of PPE and saw them using it when required. One relative told us, “[They] always wear gloves” and “Gloves are disposed of safely in one of two bins.”

Staff reported that there was ample supply of PPE.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines practices were safe. We found during our assessment that staff had recorded and reported to managers, medicines incidents where poor practice was the route cause. On occasion, these incidents happened more than once, and this had not been addressed by the provider. For example, preparing medication for administration in a moving vehicle which led to the medication being spoiled and not able to be used.

At the time of our assessment, the provider did not have anything in place to monitor the temperature of the storage areas for medicines. This meant they could not be assured that medication had not become ineffective or spoiled, particularly during periods of high temperatures in summer months.

Prompt action was taken by managers to ensure poor practice was stopped and better processes were in place and embedded into practice.

People were supported with medicines in line with their needs and preferences, and they were involved in planning and decisions around their medication. One relative told us, “I’m happy with the safety and management of medication.”