Caring Partnership 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

During this assessment we looked at 4 quality statements in the key question of safe. Medicines were managed safely. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed. Staff knew how to escalate any concerns and understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff were trained and knowledgeable about the care people required.

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.

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.

People told us they felt safe. Comments from people included, "Yes I feel safe, they are lovely girls" ; "Yes I do [feel safe]" and " Oh god yes [I feel safe], I love my carers." Relatives told us they felt safe with the care provided. They told us, "Yes definitely [feel my loved one is safe]" and "Oh absolutely [safe]."

The management team were clear about their safeguarding responsibilities, for children and adults. They gave us examples of how they ensured staff were aware of the policies and procedures; and how they worked with other professionals to ensure people were protected from abuse and neglect.

There was a safeguarding policy in place and this was being followed. This was discussed with staff during supervisions and team meetings to ensure their knowledge was regularly updated and reviewed. In our review of the provider's safeguarding log this showed concerns were raised appropriately and changes made to people's care arrangements, when appropriate. When incidents of abuse or neglect had occurred, these were appropriately reported to the local authority safeguarding team and to CQC.

People told us they felt safe with the care provided. Comments from people included, "Oh yes [I feel safe], we have a good team on, we get different people, but at least one of them always knows what the system is" and "Yes I do [feel safe], but my [relative] does a lot for me too, in fact they are a bit over the top with health and safety." Relatives told us they felt risks to their loved ones care was managed well by a team who knew them well. Comments included, "They are careful and managing risks well" ; "Everything is managed really well."

The management team and staff knew how to act to manage and prevent risks linked to people's care and seek advice and support in case of emergency. Staff's gave us specific examples of how they had supported people when incidents had happened and the actions they had taken to ensure their safety, including contact relevant healthcare professionals, relatives and the office to ensure risk assessments were reviewed and updated if required.

There were policies and procedures in place in relation to how risks to care should be managed and these were being followed. Risks to people's care were identified, assessed and control measures put in place to ensure care was delivered safely. For example, known risks with people's swallowing, moving and handling requirements or when they were agitated and required additional support were assessed in detailed and clear risk management plans put in place to guide staff. The provider was supporting people who required the use of equipment to safely moved. Although staff were completing regular checks on the equipment, the provider was not monitoring if the required certificated safety checks were being completed. We discussed this with the management team and immediate action was taken.

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

People told us staff attended the care visits at the scheduled times and if they were running late, people were informed of this. Their comments included, "No, they don’t miss any calls, sometimes they are late, but there is a good reason" ; "Sometimes a little delayed, understandably though and it doesn’t cause an issue, and they always ring to say they are sorry" and "Sometimes they are delayed, but it is always with a good reason, they do ring, it doesn’t happen often, and it isn’t an issue really. They haven’t ever missed a visit." People told us they were informed of the rota and knew who was supporting them, on a regular basis. Relatives told us, "No missed or late visits" and "Sometimes they are late, which we understand, but they always ring, they have never missed a visit."

There was an electronic call monitoring in place and the management team had access to information to check if care visits were being completed on time. They told us the processes in place if a care visit was late and it was ensured that staff stayed the full duration of the care visit, unless the person or their relative asked care staff to leave early after all the care had been provided. Staff explained how they had access to their rota in advance and what was the process they needed to follow if they were running late.

Staffing was safely managed. There management team explained they had focused their work in specific geographical areas to ensure staff would not need to travel long periods of time and allowed some staff to walk between calls. This also ensured that delays in care visits were better managed. There were processes in place to ensure staff delivered care to people at the time scheduled and stayed for the required duration of time, in line with people's needs and preferences. The management team had a good oversight of when care visits were running late or in an event of a missed visit. Information from the electronic call monitoring system was regularly reviewed by the management team and shared with commissioners, when appropriate. Staff had received training to do their jobs safely. This included face to face and on line training, as well as an assessment of their competencies. The provider was caring for people with learning disabilities, and although staff had received training to meet the needs of people they were supporting, staff had not yet received training as required. We discussed this with the provider and we shortly reviewed evidence of staff being enrolled and completing this training after our visit.

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.

People shared positive feedback about the support with their medicines management. One person told us, "Yes [care workers support me with my medication], I have a dosset box, the carers give it to me. Yes they are very efficient actually and the also have to fill in what they have given me."

Staff were able to describe how they would safely administer people their medicines, what they would do if a medicines error occurred or if someone declined to take their medicines.

Medicines were managed safely. At our last inspection, we identified improvements were required in how the service was management the medicines of people who required 'as and when' medicines. During this assessment we found 'as and when' required protocols for staff to follow were detailed and contained relevant information about the medicine's requirements and people's needs. We found one example of additional detail being required when staff were administering a medicine which had a variable dose. In our review of the records and conversations with the registered manager, we were assured this was a recording issue and the person was able to tell staff how much of the medicine they required. We did not identify gaps in medication administration records which could suggest medication had been missed. There was a process in place that alerted management team if care tasks, including medicines, had not been administered. We reviewed evidence and observed how the registered manager worked with people and relevant healthcare professionals when people were choosing to not take their medication. Support was provided to explore the benefits of medicines and the possible impact of missing it; as well as finding alternative ways to administer medicines. For example, following a choking incident while taking medication, this person's GP and pharmacist were involved and protocols were put in place for medicines to be safely crushed.