Verity Healthcare - Milton Keynes

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 changed to Requires Improvement: This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety.

There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. People were not always safe when using the service because risks to people had not always been assessed, identified and mitigated. Very few people in receipt of the regulated activity of personal care received support with medicines, where this was provided measures were not consistently in place to ensure medicines were safely managed.Staff had received the training required to support them to carry out people’s care. This included training in safeguarding and staff knew how to report concerns if necessary.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider had implemented an escalation process to support families of people using the service to raise safeguarding concerns. People and their relatives told us they felt safe when staff visited them in their homes, as they received care from consistent staff, who they knew well and felt comfortable with.Safeguarding incidents were reviewed to understand trends and identify lessons that could be learned, and an action plan was implemented to prevent a recurrence.

A safeguarding policy was in place for children and adults, this was also available in an easy read format. Staff received training in safeguarding children and adults appropriate to their role and knew where the safeguarding policy was. Staff received supervision meetings to support their understanding of their responsibilities under safeguarding procedures. They were able to explain how they would report any safeguarding concerns.

The provider did not work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not have access to the information they required to ensure people’s care was provided in a way that was safe and met their needs.

Staff did not have clear guidance on how to support people safely. Care plans and risk assessments were inaccurate and inconsistent. Key areas of risk had not been addressed in relation to people’s emotional needs and behaviour, moving and handling, nutrition support and health conditions.

For example, 1 person had complex nutritional needs and required staff support with enteral nutrition, (enteral nutrition, also known as tube feeding, is a method of delivering nutrients directly into the gastrointestinal tract through a tube, bypassing the mouth.) The risk assessments and care plans in place to guide staff were inaccurate and inconsistent. The person was at risk of not receiving their nutrition safely. One person had a diagnosis of epilepsy and was at risk of seizures. Their care plan and risk assessments contained inaccurate information and there was a risk staff would not know how to support the person safely if they experienced a seizure. One person had complex manual handling needs and required equipment to support them to move. The risk assessments in place provided inaccurate and inconsistent guidance about how staff should safely support them. There was a risk staff would not support the person to move in a safe way.

When these concerns were raised with the provider, insufficient action was taken to ensure the care plans and risk assessments were accurately updated with sufficient detail to guide staff. New care plans and risk assessments were provided but these continued to contain inconsistent and inaccurate information. This meant staff did not have access to the information they needed to support people in a safe way and mitigate risks to their safety and well-being.

People told us they were supported to understand and manage risk by staff who knew them well, but as the information provided to staff was inaccurate and inconsistent we could not be assured of the ongoing safety of the care provided.

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.

Staff had received the training required to ensure they were able to effectively meet the needs of the people they supported. Training records demonstrated that staff had received suitable training in all the areas required for their role. This included training in positive behaviour support (PBS) and behaviour management, adult and children’s first aid and learning disabilities and autism.

People’s staffing needs were individually assessed and allocated and people received care from consistent staff. People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs, staff arrived when expected and stayed for the allocated time. One person said, “Yes, they’re on time, I have enough time and never feel rushed.”

Safe recruitment and selection processes were followed. The provider had recruitment procedures in place, and records showed these were adhered to.

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.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines administration was safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Very few people who received the regulated activity of personal care also received support with medicines. We reviewed medicines records for 1 person who was also in receipt of personal care and saw their pre-assessment identified specific risks in relation to the administration of medicines. The person’s medicines care plan and risk assessment did not refer to these risks or provide clear information about who was responsible for the administration of medicines. Unclear records in relation to medicines administration placed the person at risk of receiving care that did not meet their needs.