Dial4Care Recruitment 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 has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse with an emphasis on openness, transparency and learning lessons when things went wrong. Staff were recruited safely, and people were supported by a consistent staff team that knew them well. People were fully involved in developing different approaches to keeping safe.

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.

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.

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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Relatives told us they felt their family members were kept safe with the support they received and were also positive about the support they too received from staff. One relative said, “I don’t know how I would manage without them. We have built up a good relationship and I trust them to keep us safe. They have really supported us through difficult times. It’s made a massive difference. Things could have been much different, for the worse, without them.”

Staff were very knowledgeable about how to take action to minimise the risks of avoidable harm to people and were passionate about ensuring people were safe from harm. Staff confirmed they had completed training in recognising and reporting abuse and were able to tell us where safeguarding policies and information was held.

The service had policies and procedures which covered how to safeguard vulnerable people and children from potential harm and how to ‘whistle blow’ if necessary. Safeguarding training was considered essential by the registered provider and all staff completed this and regular refresher courses. The management team maintained a safeguarding log, to ensure they had effective oversight of any safeguarding concerns. Records showed the provider reported safeguarding incidents as required to the relevant agencies and used these to learn lessons when things went wrong.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Care plans and risk assessments were completed to help staff support people to minimise risk whilst ensuring they could make choices about their lives. Relatives said they had been involved in the developments of the risk assessments. A relative told us, “The staff always involve me in everything and that includes the risks to us as a family. We work together to keep us as a family safe.”

Staff were knowledgeable and passionate about how to keep people as safe as possible and told us that the risk assessments in place were a good guide to help them keep people safe. One staff member commented, “Risk assessments are in place for children, their families, and staff to ensure their safety and well-being. "

Risk assessments were in place to identify all the risks present in a person’s life. Each person’s assessment was personalised to them and described the support they needed to manage risks. Risk assessments were reviewed monthly to make sure they remained up to date and reflected changes to people's circumstances. There were policies in place in relation to risk management that were accessible to staff.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to support people. They worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and we received positive feedback about staffing. A relative said, "The carers are very reliable and understand how important our family life is. They [staff] are usually the same ones [staff], and we have got to know them very well and they know us well too. It’s not like having strangers in your home. They have never let us down.”

Overall staff expressed satisfaction regarding staffing levels. One staff member told us, “We generally have enough staff to provide safe and effective support, our workload is manageable as we can divide work and ensure young people get the attention they need.” Staff confirmed they attended the same care visits for people. One member of staff told us, “Staffing is consistent, which allows us to build strong, trusting relationships with the individuals we support. This consistency enhances the quality of care provided.”

An assessment of people’s needs was completed before a care package was agreed. This meant the provider was able to assess how much support a person needed and how many staff were required to provide that support safely. The assessment also identified the skill mix of staff needed to provide people’s care. Staff rotas showed that sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. The provider followed robust recruitment procedures to ensure people were protected from staff that may not be fit to support them.

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 look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.