Jadee's Nursing Agency

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 developed a culture where staff worked together to learn from things that went wrong. Accidents, incidents and complaints were investigated with actions taken to mitigate risk and prevent recurrence. This included reviewing care plans, risk assessments and processes as well as retraining staff, when needed.

Staff meetings were held to discuss best practice and lessons learnt. A staff member said, “We have monthly team meetings to discuss any concerns and to help one another.” Another said, “We also look out for one another, stepping in to cover visits or offer advice when someone needs help. Even though we don’t see each other face-to-face every day, there’s a strong sense of teamwork and shared responsibility. Most importantly, we all stay focused on giving consistent, respectful, and person-centred care in each [person’s] home.”

The provider 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. We received positive feedback about support, for example when people returned home from hospital and saw the leadership team raised any concerns they identified about unsafe discharges.

A staff member shared how communication was central to this explaining, “As a team when we’re doing home visits, I think we work really well at staying connected and supporting each other, even though we’re often working independently in different locations. We’re always connected with communicating, whether it’s through regular updates, handovers, or messaging systems, to make sure we’re all informed about any changes in a client’s health, needs, or routines.”

The provider had procedures to help safeguard people from abuse. Staff undertook training to understand this process. The leadership team discussed safeguarding procedures with staff and tested their knowledge. Staff were able to explain about different types of abuse and how they would report these. A member of staff shared, “I would report any abuse or harm to my supervisor by following the safeguarding protocol and can also escalate my concerns to external agencies like the local authority and CQC.”

The provider shared information with people using the service and made sure they had access to the contact details for local authority safeguarding teams. People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe with the staff. A relative commented, “I trust them to do a good job. We have different carers, [a team of regular carers] but it doesn’t bother us. They bring him out in his wheelchair into the garden for a bit of air. They tell me straight away if he has sores or anything different, they notice, anything at all. They are very good.”

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Whilst they provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them, this was not always fully documented in the records. For example, some risk assessments were generic and lacked sufficient detail in relation to people’s specific conditions such as epilepsy or other specific healthcare conditions to show potential risk factors and how this was being mitigated.

Information about people’s mobility needs was limited especially where specialist equipment was used to transfer or assist people in their care. Further information is needed to document the details of the care people receive and how people are involved in the risk management process.

We found no evidence of impact on people using the service, as management and staff were knowledgeable about people’s specific care needs. The registered manager told us, “We know these people well, understand their needs and how they wish to be treated.” They acknowledged that there was room for improvement in the care records and were receptive to our feedback. They confirmed they would review and make improvements to the risk assessment process. We were encouraged to learn on the second site visit that they had contacted the local authority commissioning team for support in this area.

The provider assessed people’s home environment to identify any risks. When risks were identified, the leadership team discussed these with people and their families and developed plans to help mitigate risks. The registered manager liaised with other professionals when they identified people needed or would benefit from equipment. For example, they had alerted other professionals when a person needed specialist equipment to keep themselves safe in bed. They also liaised with professionals who carried out services on equipment to make sure this equipment was safe to use.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Who were supported in their roles through supervision and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff received relevant specialised training in areas such as autism, learning disability, mental health, catheter care, diabetes, dementia care, Parkinson’s Disease and PEG. PEG stands for percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy and enables people to take on nutrition through the stomach by tube if unable to eat or drink safely by mouth.A relative shared how having this support had been a positive experience for them in giving them peace of mind enabling them to take a break. “The care that we are getting is so helpful; I can’t stress it enough. The hospital put a lot of pressure on me to train to change the feeding tube, but I insisted that I wouldn’t do it. [The care staff manage this] I now get respite and go shopping or have a rest.”

Staffing levels and skill mix were carefully considered to make sure people received consistently safe, good quality care that met their needs. People and relatives explained how they had a regular team of care staff that came, stayed the full visit duration, and they knew who to expect. One person shared, “4 times a day the carers come, always on time. They are very good, very kind. I am more than content and we have become friends. I feel safe in their hands. They are all friendly and caring.”

A relative told us, “They are very very nice people, like a family now. We have 2 carers 4 times a day. There is a group of about 25 we have had them all. There is always someone who has been to us before. I feel safe and confident with the care my [family member] receives from them.”

Safe recruitment procedures were followed to ensure staff were safe to work with people. This included requesting and receiving references and checks with the disclosure and barring service (DBS). DBS checks are carried out to confirm whether prospective new staff had a criminal record or were barred from working with people.

There were enough staff employed, who had received relevant training and ongoing support in their role through supervisions, appraisals, competency checks and team meetings. A member of staff shared, “Spot checking [competency checks] is part of the service culture, our manager does this regularly, to see how we are doing in the field.”

Staff told us they felt supported and there were opportunities for professional development. A member of staff shared, “Jadee’s [Nursing Agency] places strong emphasis on staff development. I have received thorough training in areas including safeguarding, medication administration, moving and handling, infection control, and more. Whenever additional training needs arise, management is quick to arrange relevant sessions, ensuring we are always equipped to deliver high-quality, safe care.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. We received feedback from people; they were satisfied with the infection control measures employed by the service. One person said the staff wore, “Gloves and aprons all the time when they give me [personal care].”

Daily care records showed regular cleaning being undertaken by staff as agreed in people’s care plans. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff received training in infection, prevention and control and food hygiene to support good practice in this area.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People said they received their medicines when needed and staff recorded electronically what had been administered onto their handheld devices. One person commented, “The care worker sees to my medication. They administer it for me. I am fed through a PEG tube.” Another person shared how the staff, “Always make sure I have a drink by my side. They make sure I take my medication after they have taken it out and put it within my reach.”

Staff told us they had received appropriate training and had their competency to administer medication regularly checked by the management team. One member of staff shared, “The management team come out on visits and will check we are doing things properly.”

Care plans and risk assessments were in place to guide staff. This included information for care staff on when they can give ‘as required’ medicines such as paracetamol when people expressed pain.

The provider had systems and processes for the safe management of medicines. Regular medicines audits were undertaken by the registered manager and actions taken in the event of any errors or discrepancies being identified.