Mercy & Clara Healthcare Ltd

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 inspection for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

This service scored 59 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Although staff knew the person they supported, some safety incidents weren’t properly looked into or reported. As a result, lessons weren’t always learned, and good practice wasn’t consistently shared or put in place. We spoke with the provider who assured us they would start recording incidents.

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. Although the provider had completed initial assessments, they had not requested a support plan from the local authority to inform them of the person’s needs and to ensure they meet the legal requirement to meet the commissioned hours. As a result of our feedback, the provider obtained the support plan from the local authority.

Although the provider worked with people and their relatives to understand what being safe meant to them, they did not always recognise their duty to identify concerns and how to act upon them. Incidents which should have been recorded and looked into were not analysed nor were they recorded appropriately which meant people were at risk of potential harm. Despite this, staff had completed safeguarding training and knew people well. People and their relatives told us they felt safe.

The provider had completed risk assessments for people and had put some measures in place to mitigate those risks. However, not all risk had been identified and risk identified had not be recorded in detail. Risk assessments related to people’s health and emotional needs had not been fully completed and lacked sufficient detail and guidance for staff to follow to help keep people safe. Although the provider worked with people and their relatives to understand and manage risks, and staff provided care to meet people’s needs, the provider did not always plan or record care to meet people’s needs safely. Despite this, staff knew people well and had a good understanding of people’s risks and explained how they supported people during care tasks to keep them safe. A relative confirmed this and told us staff had an excellent understanding of their family member’s needs which gave them assurance.

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 checked the person’s home during the first assessment to make sure it was safe for both staff and the person receiving care. A relative said, “They [staff] tell us if there are any issues in the home as we are responsible for sorting it out.”

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 which met people’s individual needs. People received care from the same staff. One relative told us, “The best thing about Mercy and Clara Healthcare is the continuity of care for [Name] this is very important to us as [Name] has cognitive decline. We couldn’t ask for a better service.” Staff were recruited safely and had received training, supervision and ongoing support from the service.

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. People were supported by staff who had received training in infection prevention and control and knew how best to support them in a safe way. People and their relatives told us the staff always washed their hands and wore gloves and aprons. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) to support them in delivering care in a safe way.

The provider did not always make sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Although staff had received training and involved people and their relatives in planning, records were not kept in line with best practice guidance. Care records were not always updated with important information about people’s medicines and how to support them, nor were medication administration records (MAR) completed properly. For example, some records showed staff were prompting people with medicines and other records showed staff administered medicines. We spoke with the provider who assured us, this will be rectified, and a training refresher would be provided for staff.