ICare GB Limited - Derby Care Office

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 remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 provider had not always had a proactive and positive culture of safety, as we found several people did not have a plan of care in place, this meant staff did not always have guidance available on how people would like to be supported. The provider and manager were aware of this and were working to an action plan to put this right.

The provider worked with people and external professionals to establish and maintain safe systems of care; however, these were not always recorded in people’s care plans. For example, we found some people’s needs and preferences around how they required their care to be delivered was not recorded and available for staff to read.

People felt they were safe using the service and staff were confident in the action they would take if they had concerns about a person’s safety or welfare.

There were processes for staff and managers to respond to concerns about a person’s safety, welfare and their health.

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.

People felt they were safe using the service. One person told us, “I used to be frightened using the shower, but not now I have the carer, I don’t know what I would do without them.” And a relative told us, “They visit [person] but they always check I am ok too, its safe.”

Staff had received training in safeguarding. We found effective systems in place to ensure accidents and incidents were investigated and analysed. We found the manager had taken appropriate action when safeguarding incidents had occurred. This included carrying out their regulatory duties, for example reporting to external agencies, such as the local safeguarding team and CQC.

The provider had not always worked well to record people’s needs and preferences and make this information available for staff to follow.

People had been involved in their initial assessments and staff had identified and assessed any risks such as people’s mobility, moving and handling. However not everyone had a care plan in place and available for staff to read. The manager had identified this and showed us the progress they had made in ensuring these were put in place, at the time of our assessment we found there was still a small number of people with insufficient guidance in place for staff to follow.

We reviewed the care plans and risk assessments that were in place and found they were person centred and detailed people's needs along with the actions staff were required to take to minimise risks that had been identified.

People told us they were visited by regular staff who knew them and understood their need, people were positive about the care they received. One person told us, “I can’t fault them, they are very kind and look after me well” and another person told us, “We generally have the same carer, I have no problems with the care, its safe, they are experienced workers.”

Environmental risks had been assessed, this ensured staff were aware of any risks when carrying out visits to people.

The provider made sure technology supported the delivery of safe care. We found various monitoring systems in place which monitored care delivery and alerted the management team to any issues arising, these were promptly actioned.

Staffing had not always been organised in a way that met people's needs. We found instances where people had received visits at different times each day. People told us this impacted them as they did not know when their carer would arrive. The manager and provider were aware of this and were taking action to improve the way in which visits were scheduled.

Staff had been recruited safely and had received training appropriate to their role. Staff spoke positively about the training they had received and told us this was regularly refreshed and updated.

We reviewed staff competency checks and found staff had regular checks to ensure the care they provided was in line with their training and the provider’s policies.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and ensured staff had an adequate supply of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment).

Staff were aware of infection prevention and control processes they should follow and told us they had received training in this area.

The provider had an infection prevention and control policy. The management team completed spot checks of staff, to ensure they were putting their training into their practice.

People were supported to receive their medicines safely.

Staff received medicines training, and their competency was checked regularly to ensure good practice was followed.

Regular checks were also completed of the medicine records, we reviewed these records, and found people had their medication administered safely and in line with the prescribing instructions.