Care4LifeHealthcare Services (Corby)

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 assessment for this service. This key question has been rated

Outstanding.

This meant people were protected by a strong and distinctive approach to safeguarding, including positive risk-taking to maximise their control over their lives. People were fully involved, and the provider was open and transparent when things went wrong.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 94 (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 fostered an exceptionally strong, proactive and deeply embedded culture of safety, characterised by openness, honesty and a clear commitment to continual learning. Staff

consistently listened to and acted on any safety concerns, and safety related events were investigated thoroughly and transparently. Lessons learned were not only shared but were

systematically embedded into everyday practice, demonstrating a robust approach to sustaining high quality, safe care.

External health partners told us communication with the registered manager was excellent, reflecting a culture of trust and partnership. Staff demonstrated a clear, values driven

commitment to achieving positive outcomes for people. One staff member said, “They are always keen to listen to any ideas we have to improve (person’s) life,” highlighting the service’s

openness to innovation and improvement.

Staff reported feeling exceptionally well supported and confident to raise concerns, knowing these would be responded to promptly and effectively. They had access to high quality, role

specific training, ensuring they could meet people’s needs safely and competently. Records showed staff had a strong understanding of incident reporting, and the management team

consistently met their duty of candour responsibilities by being open, transparent and timely when things went wrong.

Risk was approached proactively. Risks were never overlooked; instead, they were treated as important opportunities to strengthen practice, improve outcomes and prevent recurrence. Daily care logs included end of day updates with clear reflections on “what’s working well” and “concerns,” alongside documented action plans. This ensured potential issues were identified in real time. This meant peoples care and support was adapted in a timely way to reduce risks to them.

Staff clearly understood their responsibilities around openness and incident reporting. Learning from incidents was routinely explored in team meetings, and the management team undertook reflective reviews to identify emerging themes or patterns, ensuring preventative action could be taken swiftly. We also saw clear evidence of learning from complaints, demonstrating the service’s ongoing commitment to improvement, accountability and high quality, safe care.

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Records showed that if a person was in hospital, their usual carers would stay there with them to try and reduce their anxiety or distress and to advocate for the person ensuring their needs were understood. Hospital passports were made available and part of emergency procedures.

Staff used their in-depth knowledge of a person to identify and act on subtle changing health needs. This had enabled them to identify that a person’s eyesight had deteriorated resulting in them needing hospital appointments and admitting to hospital for surgery. The service held meetings with all involved staff and relatives to ensure they hadn’t overlooked any potential issues, concerns, or risks leading to the surgery, during it, and afterwards. They advocated on the persons behalf to make sure the surgery happened at the best time for them, and for them to have a separate waiting area. The service recognised that the reduced eyesight made it hard for the pictorial communication system to be effective. This meant the person had no effective method of communicating and increased the risk of incidents. The service developed a voice note system to work alongside the pictorial method, with the voice of a care staff who was well known to the person. This enabled the person to have less anxiety with minimal distress and helped with their recuperation period.

An external partner told us, “The staff team are proactive in improving quality of life and making changes when needed”. Following the surgery the service advocated again on the persons behalf when they felt that the review date was too far in the future. Due to their intervention the person was seen sooner. We saw evidence of the process when somebody is referred to the service. People and their relatives were involved in initial care planning and consideration was given to the needs of the person throughout the transition.

Staff told us they were confident reporting incidents. We also saw records which showed that the provider was aware of some situations in which an increase in staffing might be required.

For example, when a person needed to go to hospital and ensured staff were made available when needed. This personalised and least restrictive approach reflected a strong safeguarding culture and exceptional understanding of people’s individual needs.

We saw staff meeting minutes which evidence safeguarding was discussed in all team meetings. This helped to ensure that staff were familiar with safeguarding policies and procedures and felt able to raise and discuss any concerns. Staff supported people to be involved in understanding risks and how to keep safe. For example, they used a pictorial system to explain to a person the importance of sleep hygiene to reduce known risks to them. Electronic data management ensured all new related policies were read and understood.

Staff advised us there were aware of and used professional curiosity with people they supported. Staff were vigilant to look beyond surface-level information and explore possible areas of concern. An example of this was when they noticed a change in how somebody was moving e.g. jumping and at risk of hitting their head. Staff identified this was a sign that personal care was needed.

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. One relative

told us, “The provider always shared concerns quickly and appropriately.”

There was a clear understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), and staff demonstrate how they put these into practice effectively.

There were risk management policies, procedures and practices that aimed to minimise any restrictions on people’s freedom, choice and control. We saw how the provider had understood

safeguarding and restrictive practices to safely reduce the amount of staff support a person needed. This ensured they maintained maximum independence and safety.

However, the provider understood the need for restrictive practices to keep the person safe. We saw a restrictive practice register which recorded when restriction had been needed, why, and

the outcome. This meant the provider had full oversite of any potential patterns of incidents and was able to address any concerns in a timely manner therefore reducing the person’s distress.

We saw MCA paperwork in place which was thorough and meaningful to the person with relatives’ involvement. Risk assessments were fully personalised and clear for staff to understand and follow. This included the need to take a bag including items e.g. seatbelt cutter in the event of an emergency in the car.

A relative told us “(relative) is safe in this service”

People were fully involved in understanding and managing risks in ways that promoted their independence, dignity and personal choice.

Risk assessments were in place which were clear for care staff to understand, use on a day today basis, and explain to others. We saw risk assessments which were thoughtful, person centred and designed to keep people safe, while remaining proportionate and regularly reviewed with the person or their relative and health professionals. They were reviewed at least every 3

months or sooner where new risks or changes had been identified.

Where appropriate, people were encouraged to take carefully managed risks to live fulfilling and meaningful lives. This demonstrated a proactive, practical approach to safety without limiting people's independence or daily experiences. Staff used accessible communication tools to help people understand potential risks and make decisions.

Staff told us they felt able to respond appropriately to behaviour that communicates a need, emotion or distress. They felt they have had adequate training and guidance to help them understand and support the person to reduce distress from unmet needs. One person liked to sleep until later in the day. We saw care records which showed their care was organised around this whilst also recognising the risk of sleep hygiene practices and guiding the person appropriately. This has enabled the person to have less incidents of distress when they wake and starts their day.

Staff have had physical restraint training and there are clear guidelines for them to follow if this is needed to keep a person safe.

People were cared for in safe environments that were thoughtfully designed and adapted to meet their individual needs, preferences, and sensory profiles. We saw records where a person had an Occupational Therapy assessment to advise on their sensory needs and this was followed. The service ensured that every environment used for supported living promoted independence, safety and emotional wellbeing. This included the development of a dedicated sensory room. This provided a calming, therapeutic space tailored to the person when they experienced sensory overload, anxiety or require structured sensory input as part of their regulation and wellbeing. People told us this had a positive impact on the persons daily routines and helped them feel safe and settled within their home.

The environment was also safe for staff to work in without restrictions to their ability to offer care. Staff told us they felt confident that risk assessments, safety checks and clear guidance ensured they could work effectively and safely, without compromising the person’s independence or freedom.

The size, setting and design of the service aligned with best practice and relevant legislation, ensuring homes were accessible, appropriate and adaptable for current and future needs. The provider recognised that a previous property was unsuitable and was causing the person to experience increased restrictions and anxiety, which in turn impacted both them and their care staff. The service worked collaboratively and sensitively with the person and their relatives to identify and secure a new property that fully met their needs, both now and as those needs developed over time. This proactive and person-centred approach significantly improved the person's comfort, sense of safety, and overall quality of life. Where possible people were consulted about the environment to ensure adaptations and reasonable adjustments were made to meet their individual needs.

There were effective fire safety procedures in place. We saw audits and safety policies in relation to COSHH (Control of substances hazardous to health). Carers have training in safety procedures and know how to request any maintenance needs. We saw evidence of spot checks where any issues were identified and managed in a timely manner. This consistent commitment to safe, personalised and future-proof environments demonstrates the provider’s outstanding understanding of how physical surroundings directly influence people’s wellbeing, independence and day-to-day experiences.

The service had an exceptional approach to safe and effective staffing, ensuring people consistently received high-quality, person-centred support from staff who understood their needs well. Staffing levels were proactive, flexible and based on people’s assessed needs rather than set routines, ensuring staff were always available to provide the right support at the right time. This reflected the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, ensuring the right mix of staff skills, experience and values were in place to deliver truly personalised care that promoted independence, dignity and choice.

Staff were recruited safely, with robust checks and values-based interviewing to ensure new team members demonstrated compassion, respect and a commitment to supporting people with a learning disability. People benefited from consistent staffing teams, reducing anxiety and helping build trusting, secure relationships. Staff told us they felt well trained and confident in their roles, and we saw evidence of high-quality induction, ongoing supervision and specialist training, such as positive behaviour support, communication approaches and sensory awareness which enabled staff to support the person safely and effectively. Training was tailored to the needs of the individual. Staff had completed the mandatory training requirement on learning disability and autism in line with code of practice. The provider encouraged staff to develop and progress in their careers.

No staff member was permitted to work unsupervised until all required recruitment checks were complete. This helps to ensure the safety of the people being supported. Regular DBS update checks were carried out at least every 6 months. This enabled the managers to find out if any new disclosures on DBS had been made. This continued monitoring ensures that staff remain safe to work in the service.

The service regularly reviewed staffing levels and skill mix, adapting to changes in people’s needs or circumstances to ensure risks continued to be managed safely and people’s daily lives were not restricted. Staff deployment was thoughtful and well planned, ensuring people received support from those who knew them best and could recognise subtle changes in behaviour, mood or health. Relatives and professionals consistently praised the service for its knowledgeable, skilled and reliable staff team. This strong commitment to having the right people, in the right roles, working in the right way meant people experienced safe, high-quality care delivered in an environment where their individuality, rights and aspirations were always prioritised.

The service had effective infection, prevention and control (IPC) measures in place to protect people, staff and visitors from the risk of infection.

Staff followed clear policies and procedures that aligned with current guidance, and they demonstrated a good understanding of how to reduce the spread of infection. Regular cleaning

schedules were in place and monitored, ensuring environments remained hygienic and well maintained. Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately if needed.

Training in IPC was up to date.

We saw care records which showed people were encouraged to take part in keeping their home clean and safe.

The provider carried out regular audits to ensure standards remained high and acted promptly when improvements were identified. These measures ensured people experienced safe, clean

and comfortable living environments.

We saw the service had safe and effective systems in place to support people with their medicines. We saw clear policies and procedures that promoted safe administration, storage and recording of medicines in people’s homes. Medicines administration records (MARs) were completed accurately, and audits were carried out regularly to identify and address any gaps or errors.

PRN (as-needed) medicines were used appropriately, with clear protocols in place that explained when they should be given, how to recognise when the person might need them, and any alternatives staff should try first. These protocols were detailed enough to ensure consistency between staff and helped reduce the risk of unnecessary medication use. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to monitor the effectiveness of PRN medicines and when to seek professional advice.

The service had a clear awareness of STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or both) and promoted its principles in practice. Staff understood the importance of avoiding unnecessary or excessive use of psychotropic medicines and worked closely with health professionals to ensure medication was reviewed regularly and used only when clinically appropriate.

There was evidence of collaborative working with learning disability nurses and families to explore nonmedicinal interventions wherever possible.

Relatives and professionals told us they felt medicines were managed safely and that staff were knowledgeable and proactive in keeping people well.

These measures ensured medicines were administered safely, reviewed appropriately and used in a way that promoted people’s health, rights and overall wellbeing.