Newlink Care Services

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 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 62 (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.

Systems were in place to promptly respond to accidents and incidents. Records showed actions were taken when incidents occurred. Measures were put in place to minimise the risk of reoccurrence of incidents. Accidents and incidents were monitored. Any lessons learnt were used to improve the quality of service which were relayed to staff through staff meetings and guidance to embed good practice.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain systems of care. A healthcare professional told us, “Regular multidisciplinary review meetings are held, with reports shared across teams to maintain transparency and continuity of care.”

Processes were in place for staff to contact and access health and social care professionals when people needed support with their care and treatment. Hospital passports provided information on people’s needs and the support they required to ensure continuity of care when using different services. A relative told us, “[Person] changed GP when they moved into the service. [Person] also had surgery and it is now resolved. When [person] was in hospital support staff stayed with them, and they asked for them over their [relative]. The staff know [person] and know how to handle them.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant. There were systems to protect people from the risk of abuse. There were safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place to report potential abuse. Staff had completed safeguarding training and aware of the different types of abuse and reporting procedures to follow if they had any concerns. The registered manager told us there had been no safeguarding concerns.

The provider worked well with people to understand and manage risks. People and relatives told us staff were aware of their needs and provided them with the support they needed to keep them safe from harm. A relative told us, “Staff look after [person’s] safety and wellbeing. [Person] is accompanied when out. Risks are managed, for example [Person] is not aware of dangers in the kitchen, so they have always had someone with them.”

Risk assessments provided information on how to minimise risks and maintain people’s safety in accordance with people’s specific needs. Risk assessments covered areas such as use of public transportation, health and safety, eating/choking, nutrition, behaviours that challenged, medicines and finances. These included preventative actions to minimise risks and measures for staff on how to support people safely. This helped ensure people were supported to take responsible risks as part of their daily lifestyle with the minimum necessary restrictions.

Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPS) provided details about people's conditions that could impact on their ability to leave the premises in the event of an emergency and guidance on how staff should support them.

Healthcare professionals spoke positively about how the service worked collaboratively with them to ensure people’s safety and wellbeing. A healthcare professional told us, “The service demonstrates a strong commitment to safety. Risks are assessed and managed appropriately, with staff adhering to established guidelines and individualised care plans. Proactive measures are taken to mitigate potential risks both in inpatient and community environments.”

The provider 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 had been undertaken to help ensure risks within the environment were assessed. Health and safety checks were carried out in respect of the environment and that equipment was safe for use.

The provider did not always make sure recruitment processes were operated effectively and consistently to ensure staff were of good character and had the competence, skills and experience necessary for their roles.

Recruitment checks were not robust. We reviewed 5 staff files and found that, the interview forms for 4 staff detailed the questions used and answers provided by applicants. There were handwritten comments and scores completed by the provider. However, the forms did not detail the staff member conducting the interview and what the scores meant. In 1 staff file, there were literacy and theory questions and answers, however these had not been scored. Therefore, we could not be assured how staff had been assessed and confirmed as being suitable and competent for the roles applied for.

In 2 staff files, we found full education and employment histories had not been listed and no satisfactory written explanation of gaps in employment and education.

For all 5 staff members, a job offer was made before ensuring they were of good character and authenticity of any previous organisations worked for. For example, all the disclosure and baring services (DBS) checks acquired at the time of recruitment were undertaken by previous employers. For 2 staff members, DBS checks were from organisations that were not detailed in their employment histories. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Providers must be able to demonstrate sound reasons for not obtaining a full DBS check before a person takes up post and also demonstrate they have assessed any potential risk. For all staff members, there were no reasons recorded as to why a full DBS check could not be obtained by the provider at the time of recruitment and potential risks assessed. Records did show DBS checks for all 5 staff had been undertaken by the provider at a later date after they had been employed by the service.

We raised these issues with the registered manager and nominated individual who were receptive to the feedback. They told us they had started to implement the necessary changes to standardise elements of the recruitment process to ensure consistency and robustness for future recruitment.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection to ensure people were protected from the risk of infection. The service had an infection control policy in place. Staff had received infection control training and had access to personal protective equipment [PPE] when needed. Infection control audits were completed to ensure safe infection control practices were implemented at each supported living premises.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe. Medicines administration records (MARs) showed people received their medicines as prescribed. A person told us “They look after me really well, I am happy. I take medicines every day, staff give it to me.”

There was guidance in place for the administration of medicines that were prescribed to be given 'as required' (PRN) and a medicines policy in place. Medicines management audits were carried out to ensure any shortfalls were identified and followed up. Records showed staff had completed medicines training and their competency was checked during spot checks to ensure they were competent and administered medicines safely.