KC Care & Social Activities 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 78 (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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People we spoke with said staff were open and honest with them if things went wrong. One person said, “[Staff] are open and honest. I get on with them.”

Accidents and incidents were recorded and logged appropriately. Analysis was used to learn lessons and make improvements in the service and this learning was shared with the staff team.

The service 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. People’s care needs were assessed before they used the service and the staff had time to get to know them.

Overall, people said staff supported them to see other health care professionals. People’s comments included, “[Staff] have contacted the doctor for me” and “They work with the OT, for my feet”. A relative said, “The carers arranged for the nurse to come out.” Although, one person told us, “The admin person said they would sort out the chiropodist for me, but this was not done.”

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to fully understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff had a clear focus 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 always shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The management team placed a very strong emphasis on safeguarding people and undertook advanced learning in this area. Any concerns and incidents were addressed appropriately and in a timely way by the management team and appropriately reported to relevant external parties. Staff had completed safeguarding training and the provider’s safeguarding policy guided staff about different types of abuse, and how to raise a concern to ensure people were protected.

A staff member said, “We have our safeguarding lead who’s available, and does weekly calls with staff to see how things are and if we have any concerns.”

People confirmed they felt safe with the staff. They told us, “Yes, I feel safe with them. I am comfortable with them”, “I do feel safe. We talk about all sorts” and “Yes, safe with them. All good with me.”

Relatives said, “I never feel [my family member] is unsafe. No harm”, “Yes, definitely. [My family member] loves [the care staff] and is proud of them” and “[My family member] would speak to me if they did not feel safe. I have no concerns about the carers.”

The service 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.

Risks to people's health, safety and well-being were well managed. People had risk assessments, which were reviewed regularly, in response to their changing needs or after a significant event. Staff had completed training to help them in managing risk.

People and relatives confirmed people were involved in decisions about risks in their life. One relative said, “[Staff] are aware that [my family member] is prone to falls. They are pretty good about going up the stairs with [my family member].”

The service 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 in place to identify any potential hazards in people’s homes. These were carried out in consultation with people to ensure the care environment was safe.

People told us staff helped them to keep themselves and their property safe. People said, “[Staff] always lock the doors when they leave, and they take the rubbish out. I left the window open, and they came back to tell me to shut the window” and “They lock up when leaving.” Relatives said, “[Staff] lock up properly” and “They lock windows and shut the doors.” Where people had key safes, people and relatives confirmed staff were careful to lock them properly.

People had care plans that included guidance on the safe use of equipment, for instance, to enable people to mobilise, receive care and maintain their independence.

Relatives told us staff knew how to use the equipment needed to provide people’s care and support. One relative went on to say, “[My family member] has a hoist, and had a walking frame in the past. “[Staff] keep equipment clean and in good condition.”

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.

People told us care staff were kind and caring and were sufficiently well-trained to meet people's needs. People’s comments included, “[Staff] have the right training. They take care of me”, “I can’t fault them” and “Some are experienced and some are learning on the job”. A family member said, “Yes, [staff] have the right training.”

Most people said the same carers or group of care staff usually provided their care and support. People’s comments included, and “The same people come. I have a small group of carers, some come more than others” and “There were teething problems at first. Lots of different carers. Now it’s the same carers.”

Most people and relatives said staff usually arrived on time and stayed for the planned time. One person said, “[Staff] only go early if I say they may go, otherwise they stay for the duration.” Although, some people said the service did not always let them know if staff were running late. One relative said there was a period when they had concerns about care staff not turning up at the right times. However, they went on to tell us that things had improved since then.

Staff were recruited safely. The provider completed pre-employment checks such as obtaining references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies, where appropriate.

Staff supported people to maintain their home environment. People and relatives confirmed staff washed their hands, and wore gloves and aprons when they should. The provider demonstrated good practice in relation to managing infections and keeping people and staff safe. Staff received training in infection control and were supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons to use when providing care and support.

One person said, “[Staff] leave my home tidy.” Another person said, “Sometimes they wash pots for me.”

The service made sure medicines were given safely and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. There were medicines administration policy and procedures in place and people had clear medicines care plans, which included details of what medicines they were prescribed, when and why. Staff were trained in medicines administration, and their competence was checked. Where staff provided support with people’s medicines, they completed medicine administration records and these were audited on a regular basis.

People we spoke with were happy with the support they received from staff with their medicines. One person said, “No problems. I get my medicines on time.” Another person told us, “[Staff] give me medication when I am in pain.” A relative told us, “The carers help with medication. They are timed. The remind [my family member] to take them, and also check [my family member] has taken them.”