Diverse Care Services

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment.

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 culture within the service was not consistently focused on safety and learning. Some risks to people were not always planned for or further information for staff was needed about how the risks would be managed. There was a system in place for recording and analysing incidents. However, it was not always clear how lessons learnt from some incidents were used to drive improvements. People and relatives knew who to contact if they had any concerns about their care. A relative told us, “I was not happy about a staff member, and this was dealt with very promptly by the manager.” The management team were open and transparent and wanted to drive improvements in the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. A health and social care professional told us, “I have worked with Diverse Care for many years and found their service is good.”

The provider worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and with health and social care teams and professionals on the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns appropriately with relevant agencies, teams and professionals. People told us they felt safe with the staff supporting them. A person said, “I feel really safe with them (staff).” Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew what to do if they suspected abuse including how to contact the police or the local authority to keep people safe. Safeguarding people and staff’s associated responsibilities were discussed in staff meetings. The provider told us they liaise regularly with the police and the fire service. and refer people for fire safety risk assessments and reviews to ensure their homes are safe from fire hazards.

The provider did not work consistently with people to understand and manage risks. Our last inspection identified staff were not always provided with clear guidance when supporting people to mobilise. We saw improvements had been made to risk assessments for people who needed assistance to move safely. However, some risk assessments lacked clear guidance for staff to follow about how the risk should be managed. This included a lack of clarity on how to manage risks relating to people’s specific health conditions. Also, some known risks to people had not been assessed, so there was no guidance about how the risk should be managed, which had the potential to put people at increased risk of harm. Although there was some information to support people who maybe distressed, this was not consistent across people’s care records. Despite our findings there was no evidence that people had been harmed. People felt staff understood the risks associated with their care. A person told us, “I feel safe and confident with the staff.” Staff knew people’s needs and told us they understood how to manage people’s care in a safe way. People were supported by a consistent staff team. The provider told us they had taken steps to improve the clarity of risk management guidance, particularly regarding mobility and specific health conditions, addressing the concerns raised about the lack of guidance for staff in these areas.

The provider identified and took steps to control potential risks in the care environment. The provider completed environmental risk assessments within people’s homes during their initial assessment to check if it was safe for staff to carry out care in a safe environment. This included checks around fire safety. A relative told us staff ensured the home environment was kept safe and free from hazards, especially before they left, after the care visit had finished.

The provider made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received thorough support and supervision. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The managers had worked well to ensure they matched the staff’s skills and experience to the needs of the person. People and their relatives told us staff would always attend their care calls and would stay for the agreed duration of these. A few people told us staff were sometimes a little late, but this was usually due to traffic problems, and they would be informed about the delay. A person told us, “I have regular staff and I know who is coming. Staff always talk to me and ask me about my care and how I want things done. They know what they are doing and seem to be well trained.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection associated with people’s care. People and relatives told us that staff attending their calls would wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff confirmed the appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was monitored through regular spot checks by senior staff. Staff confirmed they had completed training and always had access to supplies of PPE.

Safe systems were in place and followed to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Not all people were supported with their medicines. Where support was required, a risk assessment was in place detailing the level of support needed. Staff had received medication administration training and had their competency assessed. The system in place ensured the management team was alerted and took appropriate action if any medicines task had not been completed.