Cinox 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 assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

The registered manager told us there had not been any allegations of abuse, complaints or accidents and incidents since they became operational. However, the provider had policies in these areas which showed there should be learning from any incidents to help improve practice in the future.

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.

The service only had 2 people using it at the time of inspection. Both of whom were privately funded. The local authority or other health and social care organisation had not been involved with the person’s transitions to using the service. However, the provider had worked with the person themselves and their relatives to help ensure a smooth pathway and transition into the service.

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.

Although the registered manager told us there had not been any safeguarding allegations since they commenced providing care, systems were in place to deal with this. The provider had a safeguarding adult’s policy in place to help guide practice in this area. Staff undertook relevant training and were aware of their responsibility to report any allegations of abuse. One member of staff told us, “I will escalate it. I will tell the manager and the police if necessary.”

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.

Risk assessments were in place for people. These included information about the risk and how to mitigate it. People had been involved in developing the assessments and they covered areas including mobility, falls and personal care. Both people using the service had only recently started with the service so there had been no need to review the risk assessments as yet. However, the registered manager said risk assessments would be subject to regular review. This meant they would be able to reflect the risks people faced if they changed over time. People told us they felt safe. A relative said the care was ‘very safe’.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

As this was a domiciliary care agency where the service supported people who lived in their own homes, the provider did not have responsibility for the safe maintenance of the property or the equipment used. However, the provider had carried out environmental and fire risk assessments of people’s homes to help ensure support was provided in a safe way.

The provider did not always carry out robust staff recruitment checks. At the time of inspection, they employed 2 staff. They had not carried out DBS checks on either of them when they commenced working at the service. Rather, they had relied upon DBS checks from a previous employer. This was a breach of Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The provider did however, carry out their own DBS checks the day after we announced our inspection. They had carried out other pre-employment checks including obtaining employment references, proof of identification and proof of the right to work in the UK.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs in a safe way. The registered manager told us, as there were only 2 people using the service, it was easy to monitor that staff were punctual through regular contact with the people. People confirmed that staff were punctual. A relative said, “[Staff member] is always on time. Yes, they do [stay for the full amount of time allocated].” Another relative said, “They are very punctual with the agreed time.”

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.

Systems were in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Staff wore personal protective clothing when providing support with personal care. Staff had also undertaken training on infection control and there was a policy in place to help guide 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.

At the time of our inspection, the service was not supporting anyone to take medicines The registered manager said they could provide this service if required. There was a medicines policy to help guide practice in this area.