Care Needs Limited Stockport

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

People told us they receive care. People medicines were managed safely overall. However, we have made recommendations to the provider regarding recording medicines administered to people. People’s risks were assessed and reviewed. Staff knew how to keep people safe and protected from 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.

People and their families told us they could raise concerns about their care and knew who to speak to. One person told us: “I would speak to the carers or the office. The communication is good.“Another person told us: “Yes, I do but I haven’t really had to raise any concerns."

Staff told us they could speak up and raise concerns. One staff member told us: ”I would speak to the office. I had training on Whistleblowing, and I would speak to CQC.”

There were processes and policies to support a learning culture. We saw evidence of some learning and action undertaken following serious medicines error including staff training and assessing staff competencies regarding administering medicines to people. Additionally following our feedback registered manager had taken a prompt action in regards to submitting future notifications to us under Health and Social Care Act 2014 and working with Mental Capacity Act (MCA).However not all of the areas of improvement led to in depth analysis and there was a lack of evidence how learning was used to improve outcomes for people and the overall service for example regarding staff punctuality, rotas and visits to people.

People told us they felt listened to. One person told us: “Yes, they do listen. “Another person told us: “Yes, I would say so.” The provider had a good awareness of people’s risk and risk mitigation. People were involved in their care planning.

People told us they felt safe. One person told us: ”Oh yes, I do feel safe.” One relative told us:” Yes, 100%.” Staff received safeguarding training and had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and protect from abuse. One staff member told us:” I would always look for signs of physical abuse such as marks or bruises. I also know about self-neglect.” Another staff member told us: ”If there was anything at all I would contact the office straight away.” There were appropriate policies and procedures in place to keep people safe and protect from avoidable harm.

People told us they felt safe. One person told us: “Yes, I really do.” One relative told us: ” Yes,100% everything is brilliant.” Another relative said: “Yes, absolutely.”

Staff had a good understanding of people’s risks and knew how to support them. One staff member told us: “I have the same clients; I know them, and I would pick up issues straight away.” Another staff member said: “One lady has a catheter; District Nurse is involved and if there were any issues I would ring the office.

People’s individual risks were identified, assessed and reviewed. For example, we saw people’s risk assessments in regard to their mobility or their support with medicines.

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

Overall, there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. However, people told us staff did not always arrive on time or stay for the duration of the visit. One person told us: “Not always, they are sometimes late- anything up to half an hour, they don’t always ring. I need help and sometimes I’m stuck.” Another person told us:” I am not sure how long they are supposed be here, they are here for 15/20 minutes sometimes they rush off and forget to do things.”

Staff rotas did not always reflected staff travelling or break times and there were no gaps between the visits. Staff were overall happy with their schedule. However, one staff member told us:” We are short staffed at times, and we are always getting messages for shifts that need picking up. We don’t always arrive on time due to traffic and times overlapping.” Another staff member told us: “I feel I have enough time now but wouldn’t say this when I first started.”

There was evidence in place to support effective staffing. Staff records demonstrated suitable recruitment practices. There was evidence of references being sought prior to employment and gaps of employment were explored. There was evidence of completed DBS checks, and these were periodically renewed.

Staff were provided with training. There was evidence that staff completed induction training prior to supporting people. Staff were also provided with some additional training. For example, some staff completed Makaton training. One staff member acquired a trainer’s qualifications to provide in house training to staff. This included a Moving and Handling qualifications. There was evidence that staff competencies were regularly checked and assessed.There was evidence that any poor practice was addressed promptly with staff. There was evidence that staff received regular supervisions and appraisals.

There was evidence staff completed relevant training regarding infection control. Staff told us they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) when required and infection control was assessed during on site spot checks carried out by a senior member of staff. One staff member told us: “We come to the office to collect our PPE”. Senior member of staff told us: “We check PPE, they [staff] have to wear it all the time.” There were relevant policies and procedure in place to support effective infection control.

Overall people’s medicines were managed safely and received support with their medicines when required. One person told us: “Yes, and they do remind me when my medicines are running out.”

There were policies and procedures supporting medicines administration to people. There was some evidence of oversight in regard to medicines management. We saw evidence of some learning and improvements made by the provider with regards to how people’s medicines were managed and administered following a serious medicines error. Medicines administered to people were recorded on medicines charts. However, charts lacked detail in regard to how and when medicines were to be administered. Staff told us they also receive information about how medicines were to be administered through electronic system and we saw evidence of this. Staff received medicines training and there was evidence that their competencies were periodically reviewed and assessed.