Fareni Lifecare 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

We identified 3 breaches of the legal regulations. The provider had not always assessed or documented risks to people’s safety effectively. The provider did not have safe recruitment processes in place. Staff had not received an induction and appropriate training prior to delivering care. The provider's safeguarding processes were not always robust.

This service scored 19 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The person's relative told us they felt the person was safe when being supported by staff.

The provider told us there had not been any safeguarding concerns raised since starting the service. The provider had a safeguarding policy; however, staff had not been provided with any specific safeguarding training prior to delivering care.

The provider was not able to demonstrate staff knowledge and competency had been assessed and relevant training provided in line with their own safeguarding policy.

Risks to the person's safety were not well managed. The person's care plan did not provide clear information and guidance about what the risks to the person were, how to recognise concerns and support the person safely or what staff should do if something went wrong. The person's relative confirmed they told the staff member how to provide support to the person and felt the person was 'very safe' with the staff member providing their support. Despite the positive feedback, the lack of written guidance about how to support the person safely placed the person at potential risk of harm.

Whilst we found staff did not have clear and detailed guidance about how to manage risks to the person safely, the staff member told us they were never alone with the person as their relatives were always present. This meant they were able to check if they were unsure of any of the person's support needs. The provider confirmed the person's relatives were available to provide guidance to staff if required. However, the provider was not able to evidence any contingency planning in case the family were absent or unwell.

The provider's processes for assessing and reviewing risks were not effective. The provider had not completed specific risk assessments identifying the risks to the person, how they impacted the person, and how exactly staff should provide support to minimise these risks. Guidance was contradictory and it was not always clear whether the information remained up to date and relevant. The provider had not implemented a process for documenting how care was delivered. Staff did not complete any daily care records to evidence what they were doing or demonstrate how care was being provided safely.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We received positive feedback from the person's relative about the support the person received from staff. They told us the staff member was punctual and reliable at all times. However, they told us they had initially needed to tell the staff member what to do and training had not been provided to the staff member prior to them starting to deliver care. They confirmed this was no longer an issue due to the staff member now knowing the person well and understanding how they liked to be supported.

The provider had not ensured staff were suitably qualified and skilled to perform the role. The member of staff told us they had completed training in medicines, moving and handling and safeguarding. However, we found this had only been completed recently.

The provider's recruitment processes were not robust. Employment checks had not been completed in line with the provider's own policy. The member of staff did not have a full, enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service [DBS] check prior to 3 May 2024 [The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions]. The provider was not able to demonstrate they had sought evidence of the staff’s conduct in previous employment in health and social care. The member of staff’s application form was not accurate; it stated the member of staff was not eligible to work in the UK. The registered manager confirmed this was incorrect.

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.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.