Care Connect Bury 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 key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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. The management team regularly reviewed incidents, complaints and safeguarding issues for trends and themes. Action plans were implemented and information shared with staff to continually improve the service.

We found the management team were open and transparent and wanted to drive improvement at the service.

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.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. New referrals were assessed face to face to ensure people’s needs could be met. Processes were in place to ensure people received continuity of care, for example, when being transferred to hospital.

Staff were positive about the communication within the service and reported good relationships with local health and social care professionals. One professional commented “We are thankful for all you did, for staying engaged with the Council and for the fact that through your support, and the work done by colleagues, the person’s quality of life was made so much better."

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had systems in place to review and investigate accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns. Systems were in place for recording and analysing any trends and the service implemented changes in response to any lessons learned.

Staff were knowledgeable about their safeguarding responsibilities, understood how to recognise abuse, and knew what to do and how to report this. Staff told us, “I would report any concerns I have to the manager immediately”, “I would look out for signs of abuse and monitor changes in behaviour. I have completed my safeguarding training” and “I would report to the office immediately and follow protocol.”

People and their families told us they could raise concerns about their care and knew who to speak to. They told us, “I would ring or email them [managers] if I had any concerns” and “I know how to [raise concerns].”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. Care plans provided guidance for staff to ensure people received safe and responsive care and support. Risks were assessed and mitigated to keep people safe. Risk assessments were person centred and regularly reviewed.

Staff understood risks to people. A staff member told us, “Yes we have enough information, and we are always informed about changes – it’s on the care plans.”

People and relatives were involved in care planning. This was reviewed regularly or when people’s needs changed. A person told us, “They are very clued up on the risks that I face.” A relative added, “Yes, I am involved in the care planning, they [staff] come to the house and we go through it all.”

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. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Systems were in place to ensure the safe recruitment and selection of staff. These included checks on their suitability and identity. Staff undertook a comprehensive induction and regular training to help ensure they understood about best practice. Managers assessed staff competencies and skills. Staff had regular individual and group meetings with managers to reflect on their work and discuss the service.

People and relatives confirmed the same care workers regularly carried out the care visits so there was continuity of care. They also confirmed that care workers usually arrived at the agreed time and stayed for the full visit time. One relative told us staff had been turning up early, but this was rectified by the service when it was brought to their attention.

Care workers confirmed they had enough travel time between visits and sufficient time during each visit to complete the support the person required.

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 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. Staff were trained and had competency checks to make sure they gave medicines safely. When medicines were prescribed ‘when required’ there were personalised protocols to guide staff when these were needed. There were regular medicines audits and areas for improvement were identified and addressed. Any medicines incidents were appropriately reported and investigated, so measures could be put in place to prevent a recurrence and learning could be shared.