Muzaana 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

There were systems in place to encourage learning and drive improvement when things went wrong. Accidents, incidents and complaints were reported and investigated. Records of these showed action had been taken to support people and to ensure lessons had been learnt. The provider held regular team meetings to discuss any issues that had gone wrong. People using the service and their relatives told us the agency communicated well with them, apologising when needed and informing them about the actions they took to improve the service following adverse events. Staff confirmed they were informed about incidents and shared learning from these.

The provider supported people to have safe transition between services. The agency had provided staff to support people during hospital admissions. This had enabled them to receive consistent care from familiar staff. The staff had advocated for people, helped them communicate with hospital staff and supported them with their needs. External professionals confirmed the provider shared clear and detailed information when making referrals and supporting people with transitions. One professional commented, “The manager appreciates the challenges when managing a new package of care and they make sure they assess risks and plan the care.’’ They went on to tell us how the agency was willing to be flexible and adapt support to enable 1 person to stay at home and prevent readmission to hospital during a period of ill health.

There were systems to help safeguard people from abuse. The staff had training to understand how to recognise and report abuse. They were able to explain about this process and their responsibilities. The agency worked closely with people using the service and their families to help make sure they could also recognise abuse and could speak up about this.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed and planned for. People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe. Risk assessment included information on how people could be independent. Assessments were regularly reviewed and updated with people using the service and their relatives.

The provider assessed people’s home environments, the equipment they used and fire safety within their homes. They had identified any potential risks and worked with people using the service and their families to help make sure environments were safe.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to care for them safely. People were cared for by the same familiar staff who arrived on time and stayed for the agreed length of time. Comments from people using the service and their relatives included, “My carer is always on time and never rushes me’’, “Whenever there has been a new carer, they are introduced and learn the routines’’, “The staff are very reliable and trustworthy’’ and “The continuity of care is wonderful and we have built up a relationship with the carers.’’ There were systems for safe recruitment. These included checks on the staff member’s suitability and a lengthy induction, during which they shadowed experienced workers and had their skills and competencies assessed.

There were procedures for managing infection prevention and control. The staff had training and understood about best practice. People using the service and their relatives told us staff had good hand hygiene and wore personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and shoes covers when needed. The provider carried out spot checks on staff which included checks on hygiene and whether infection prevention and control procedures were being followed.

People received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed. The staff had training about medicines management. There was detailed information about people’s medicines, including risk assessments and protocols. The provider encouraged and supported people to manage their own medicines. They had liaised with pharmacies to help improve how medicines were supplied. This enabled people to access medicines with easier packaging and to be more independent. When staff were responsible for administering medicines, they kept detailed records. These were checked and audited by the management team every month.