Cardinal Care Services 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating 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.

This service scored 59 (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.

There were policies and procedures in place in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing and the registered manager was aware of their responsibilities under safeguarding. Staff had received training in safeguarding however their knowledge about signs of abuse and neglect was not always robust. There were whistleblowing policies and procedures in place. In our conversations with staff, they were not able to describe to us clearly what the process was if they wanted to blow the whistle. Competencies checks in these areas had not been completed to check staff’s knowledge. Relatives told us people were safe; their comments included, “Yes, definitely [safe].”

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Most risks to people's care were identified and assessed, but we found some examples where additional detail was required in some risk assessments; we discussed this with the management team who told us they would review people’s care and add additional information, as appropriate. Relatives told us care provided by staff was safe. Comments included, “[Person] receives very good care. They [staff] are very attentive to [person], they go above and beyond making sure [person] is OK.”

The provider was completing environmental risk assessments at the beginning of care and this was regularly reviewed. However, the provider was not always keeping an effective oversight if the equipment was safe to use by staff. We asked the provider to review this and after our visit we reviewed evidence confirming they had acted and equipment in use was safe.

We found inconsistency how the provider was managing staffing. The service did not always ensure staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. Regular staff meetings were not held, and staff spot checks were not consistently carried out to check quality of care provided as well as staff competency. However, staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and any concerns they had were dealt with in a timely manner. The registered manager told us there had been some recent complications which affected how present they were able to be in the running of the service. However, this had not had an impact on the service as people continued to receive care which met their individual needs.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified staff to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The provider ensured continuity of service by making staff aware of key updates via email and additional measures had been put in place to ensure staff still felt supported.

We found some gaps in staff knowledge around mental capacity and safeguarding people from abuse. We discussed this with the registered manager and actions were put in place to check staff competencies at regular intervals. Staff told us they received a thorough induction and shadowed other team members until they felt confident to work in the community on their own. They said they were well supported by experienced members of staff throughout their learning. Staff felt listened to by management and said they were treated like valued members of the team.

We found the provider was following safe recruitment practices, which included carrying out suitable background check. This helped to ensure staff were safe to provide care to the people receiving the service.

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 find medication errors, however we found concerns with some medication records. Staff’s competency to administer medication had been assessed and this was recorded as part of a spot check and did not detail all areas of competence had been assessed, in line with best practice guidance. The quality assurance processes in place had not always been effective in identifying the recording issues found at this assessment. The provider acted, or told us the action they would take, to address the issues identified at this assessment.