Everliving Services - Peterborough and Cambs.

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

We observed that people received safe care from staff who knew them and understood their needs. We saw staff following guidance, ensuring that people’s needs were being met as intended by health professionals. Staff knew people well and knew how to support people and their individual risks, and how to protect people from abuse. The provider ensured that staff had the necessary training to support people. Safeguarding concerns were investigated and shared with the appropriate authorities. People were supported to take risks which enabled them to have a greater level of independence. Staff and relatives knew how to raise concerns and were confident they would be dealt with.

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 supported and empowered to make informed choices and take risks as safely as possible. This was evident through information held in people's care notes and speak to staff and relatives.

The registered manager told us how they were working alongside the community to educate and deliver training to members of the public to increase understanding and acceptance of some of the needs people using the service experience.

Professionals we spoke with told us that the registered manager and staff welcomed feedback and would use this constructively to improve their practice.

The provider had effective systems and processes in place, which helped enable learning from previous incidents where people may have been at risk. We saw the provider’s systems and processes promoted people’s safety. We saw that incidents and complaints were reported, recorded and investigated appropriately and changes were made where needed, to improve the care service

The registered manager had developed effective working relationships with other professionals and agencies involved in people's care and support. This ensured safe continuity of care. The registered manager and staff understood people’s health needs well, and when changes occurred, were able to get people the help they needed. In one instance the registered manager could tell us about how this resulted in a necessary change to medication happening quicker than the person needing to wait for appointments.

The provider had effective systems and processes in place to make sure that solid relationships with healthcare professionals were established to help maintain people’s safety. We saw evidence in people’s care records, which demonstrated effective communication and ‘joined up working’ between the service and health care professionals. We also saw that the provider's policies, procedures, and processes were in line with current, relevant legislation. Professionals told us that the registered manager had acted on their advice when given, for example training in specific health care conditions to enable better understanding for staff.

People's relatives felt that people were safe living at the service. One relative was able to tell us how their family members support needs had changed due to a deterioration in their health, and how staff responded to these changed to ensure they were safe.

The management team and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of abuse and neglect and knew how to recognise signs that may indicate a person was at risk. All the staff we spoke with confirmed they had completed safeguarding training and would report any concerns without hesitation.

The provider had effective systems and processes in place to help ensure people were protected from abuse and neglect. We saw the safeguarding policies and procedures followed current and relevant legislation. The systems we looked at showed how concerns about people’s safety were recorded and reported to the registered manager, who then raised them with other appropriate bodies, such as the local authority’s safeguarding team and CQC. Where appropriate, people and those important to them were involved in this process and informed about what action would be taken to keep people safe.

The registered manager was able to talk openly to us about shortfalls which had led to a safeguarding investigation. They were able to demonstrate their learning and what had been found and the changes made to improve the service.

Relatives were confident that staff supported people to identify and manage risk. One relative told us, “Staff identify new risks and liaise with [their] social worker”. Relatives were also assured that the necessary risk documents were in place and up to date.

Staff were confident they had the knowledge and the guidance available to support people to manage their risks. One staff member told us, ‘Everliving services - Peterborough and Cambs have detailed risk assessments and policies that are updated regularly to ensure risks are reduced or minimised.’

We saw the provider had effective systems and processes in place to assess and minimise risks that were identified for people using the service. Risk assessments were person centred and covered areas such as people’s mobility, daily living and personal care requirements. We saw that people’s care plans contained up to date information and guidance for staff about the action they should take to manage identified risks and keep people safe. There were clear processes, which staff followed when they needed to report concerns, incidents and accidents. The registered manager conducted regular ‘care plan and risk assessment’ quizzes with the expectation that staff were to answer questions on the spot accurately at any given time. The expectation that staff knew the people they were supporting well was embedded in the culture of the service.

Everliving services - Peterborough and Cambs supports people in their own homes. This included people that have remained in their own homes, and also people who have moved into accommodation which is called supported living. People living in supported living have their own tenancy agreement. A relative raised concerns regarding the environment of where their family member was living, which required a number of improvements. We were assured that these were in the process of being addressed by the registered manager.

The registered manager had identified the improvements needed in one of the supported living properties. These improvements had been raised by both a relative and the CQC following a visit to one site. The registered manager also provided assurance that environmental audits and improvements were being identified across all properties.

We visited a supported living service which required a number of improvements. We discussed this with the registered manager and were assured that they had already identified these improvements and were working with external contractors to have the repairs rectified.

Environmental risk assessments and environmental audits were in place in the supported living houses.

There were enough staff who received effective training, support, supervision and development. People received pre-employment checks before they commenced their employment.

Relatives generally felt that there were enough staff working at the service, and that there was a good continuity of staff who knew people well.

Staff felt that they received the right training in order for them to do their job well and support people effectively. Staff received bespoke training when required, or if a person’s individual needs required staff to have specific knowledge. A staff member told us, ‘I receive training specifically tailored to meet the individual needs of service users.’ Staff also informed us that they felt there were enough staff working at the service.

Staff worked well as a team and the service was well organised around the needs and interests of people using the service. Staff were keen to share their feedback to us and were proud of their job, and the support they were able to offer people. The services had processes in place to ensure that staff were suitable for the role before beginning their employment.

Relatives had mixed opinions on whether the service was clean and hygienic. Although one relative was assured that the’ ‘Home is always clean and tidy’, another relative raised concerns regarding the cleanliness in a communal bathroom where we also observed mould to be present. The registered manager assured us that they were in the process of having this bathroom renovated to address the mould situation.

Staff showed us cleaning charts they filled in as they completed cleaning tasks in the houses. This reduced the risk of infection spread. Staff told us there were always sufficient stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE) including gloves and aprons which they used when supporting people with personal care.

The provider had an up-to-date infection prevention and control policy in place to provide staff with the guidance they needed to help keep people safe. We observed staff following these procedures during our site visit.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Relatives were confident that people received their medicine as prescribed.

Staff received training and competency checks and were able to confidently discuss people’s different needs regarding their medicine with us. Staff confirmed to us that they had received regular training and told us, “I assist individuals with medication in accordance with their care plans.”

The registered manager audited records of medicines administration. Where issues were identified, procedures were followed to establish what had happened and action taken to reduce the likelihood of further similar events.