Partners4Care Limited

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 and we found the provider to be in breach of regulation because they had failed to ensure good governance around medicines management. At this assessment there had been improvement, the rating has changed to good and they were no longer in breach of the regulations. 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 learned to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider used an accident and incident tracker that recorded the number of incidents across the year and broke them down into categories. This was used to help track any patterns and trends across the year to minimise future risk. A member of staff told us, “We follow a clear reporting process for incidents, and any learning is shared within the team so we can improve future practice.”

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.

A number of people using the service had moved from children’s services and we saw examples of how this process was carefully managed over several weeks. People had a number of opportunities to visit their new accommodation; meet the people they would be living with and the staff who would support them.

Information was available to ensure people received the care and support they needed, in line with their individual plans. For example, detailed hospital passports were in place which would assist medical staff should a person require hospital treatment.

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.

An annual safeguarding tracker was in use which made it simple to see if there were any trends emerging. Records showed that safeguarding concerns were appropriately escalated and investigated. Staff had received safeguarding training. We saw examples of actions being taken in response to safeguarding concerns to minimise future risk.

The provider understood their responsibilities where people were deprived of their liberty and ensured, when this was necessary, it was done lawfully and in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

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.

Risks relating to people were assessed and managed appropriately. Risk assessments about care were person-centred, proportionate, and regularly reviewed with the person or their representative.

Staff knew the people they supported well and told us how they work with people to keep them safe. A staff member told us, “I discuss the risks openly with the [person], explain why certain precautions are needed, and try to find a solution that respects their choices while maintaining safety. If needed, I seek guidance from senior staff.”

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

Staff told us about the checks that were conducted to ensure safety and we saw records that supported this. For example, smoke alarms that would alert people in the event of a fire were tested and water temperatures were checked regularly. If any maintenance work was required in the buildings the landlord would be alerted so this could be carried 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 that met people’s individual needs.

The provider followed safe recruitment processes to ensure they employed the right people for the role. There was a consistent staff team working with people wherever possible and the provider was not using any agency staff. Relatives described staff as “Skilled” and “Very competent”.

We observed sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The provider was proactive in increasing staffing levels as and when needed and to ensure people were supported safely. There are dedicated staff teams for each supported living house to ensure continuity for people.

Staff were happy with the training they received. A staff member told us, “I have received training in safeguarding, autism, mental health, medications, first aid, and behaviour support and I feel confident in my role.”

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.

The provider had policies to prevent and control infections. Staff had received infection control training and understood their responsibilities in managing infections. People were encouraged and supported with their personal hygiene to minimise risk of infection.

There were comprehensive cleaning rotas for each of the properties, and we saw tasks were completed by staff and people. The homes we visited were well maintained and extremely clean and tidy.

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.

Medicines were managed safely. A sample of medicines records were audited every month. Records of when medicines were administered were completed correctly and plans for medicines that were only taken ‘when required’ were person centred.

People had regular reviews of their medicines. We received positive feedback from people about the support they received with their medicine. A person told us, “Staff help me to take my [medicine] every morning.”