Magnus Care 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 our first assessment of the service. We have rated this key question good.

Risks to people's care were safely managed and actions taken. Staff knew about what signs of abuse they needed to report and were confident in doing this or follow whistleblowing procedures. Systems were in place to ensure people were kept safe and protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Incidents and accidents were reported, investigated and lessons learned to reduce risk of re-occurrence. The provider had effective systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse.

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.

People were involved from the start regarding how their care should be planned and delivered to reduce risks and to build on staff knowledge.

Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and reported incidents to the senior staff in line with the provider’s policy. Staff felt incidents/accidents were reviewed appropriately by the senior team. Staff told us and we saw evidence that incidents and accidents were discussed with staff at team meetings and during supervision meetings to share learning.

The provider had a culture of safety and learning which was based on openness, transparency and learning from events. Staff told us at their induction, they were introduced to the importance of reporting incidents and the investigation process.

The provider had an incident/accident log which contained 11 incidents across 2024, all of which had been documented, appropriately reported and investigated.

People and relatives told us they were involved in assessments of people’s needs.

The provider provided data from their electronic call monitoring system which we completed analysis on. In December 2024 there has been no missed or late calls as confirmed by staff and people.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

The provider made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. There was a strong awareness of the risks to people across their care journeys. For example, people’s files which were reviewed contained detailed hospital support plans; they contained key information about the person including contacts, allergies, current medical conditions to help support the admission.

People raised no concerns about their safety and relatives gave positive feedback about how confident they were in the service.

Staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding. Staff knew to raise concerns to the senior team who reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority. The provider completed their own internal safeguarding investigations which were detailed.

There were effective systems, processes and practices in place to make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. Safeguarding systems, processes and practices meant people’s human rights were upheld and protected from discrimination.

People were very positive about the quality of their care. They felt safe and were fully involved in planning their care and understood their rights.

Staff told us they had annual training to support people who presented with different behavioural needs. The registered manager told us positive risk-taking approaches were taken which focused on empowering people.

People had care records which included assessments of specific risks posed to them, such as risks arising from mobility, nutrition, skin integrity, moving and handling and falls. All care plans reviewed identified risks for people. These were person centred, proportionate and regularly reviewed with the person and their relative. Staff told us care plans were detailed and kept up to date.

People and relatives confirmed how respectful staff were and how they ensured people’s homes were left tidy and clean.

Staff said they would report any environmental concerns they had regarding a person’s home to the office who would follow this up with the relevant agency. Staff told us they had the appropriate equipment, including technological devices to support the delivery of safe care.

People using the service were cared for in their own homes. The provider completed detailed environmental risk assessments for each person being supported which helped to keep them and staff safe.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the reliability of staff. They told us, "I have never had any missed or late calls, I'm sure they would call and let me know though."

All staff told us the recruitment process and induction stage were appropriate, and this helped them to feel competent in their role. We reviewed staffing rotas and found staffing levels were appropriate.

Staff and people who used the service told us there were enough staff. Staff received the support they needed to deliver safe care. We saw evidence of, and staff told us there were regular supervisions, spot checks, shadowing opportunities, probationary reviews and appraisals.

Staff received training appropriate and relevant to their role. The overall compliance rate for training for staff who worked for the service was 100%.

There were safe recruitment practices to make sure all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. We reviewed 4 staff files and found evidence of application forms being completed, interviews taking place, suitable references being reviewed and identification being sought. There was evidence staff had disclosure and barring service (DBS) certificates.

People and their relatives raised no concerns about infection control.

Staff had access to and used personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons to help reduce the risk of cross infection. Staff had completed training in this area. There were clear roles and responsibilities around IPC.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to ensure infection, prevention and control (IPC) was managed well.

People were supported by staff who followed safe systems and processes to administer, record and store medicines safely.

Staff who administered medicines had been trained to do so and the registered manager completed regular competency checks to ensure procedures were followed.

The medication audit showed that from September to November 2024 the provider followed all protocols regarding the dispensing and returning of medications.