Simply The Best Care 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

People were kept safe and protected from harm. When people raised concerns about safety and ideas to improve, they were listened to, and the registered manager acted. We reviewed six staff recruitment records, references, and confirmations of correspondents about international staff sponsorship and found that appropriate checks had been made. We saw that where staff had restrictions on hours to be worked, the provider ensured that staff was only given hours within their sponsorship. The provider worked in line with the Home Office scheme to ensure that all aspects of paperwork and costs were reflective of current government legislation. We found that where staff had restrictions on their work licenses, the rota showed that staff were only given hours within their permitted allowances. Procedures were in place to ensure staff had the appropriate training alongside people’s individual care needs. People's liberty was respected and protected in line with legislation. However, we found not all staff had completed training to ensure people were kept safe, protected, and secure.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most people who spoke to us about using the service, and their relatives, felt listened to, and that incidents and accidents were consistently recorded. People using the service told us they felt safe with staff who supported them. Some people told us that staff were late at times and did not always tell people about this. However, when people using the service, or their family, raised this with the service, timekeeping and communication improved.

The staff understood the responsibility of reporting any concerns. The registered manager recorded incidents to determine whether changes to people's support needed to be made.

The provider had appropriate policies and procedures to address incidents or concerns. Relevant referrals had been made to address any additional support people needed. However, we saw investigation reports could be improved. This inspection was partly triggered by information of concern that alleged a staff member was sleeping at a person who used the service's house outside of their care package. The service conducted an investigation; however information gathered was brief in parts for example no next of kin, other staff, or neighbours of the person were spoken to despite them witnessing events related to this. Only the person using the service and staff member were spoken with, and due to the person using the service having additional communication needs, it is unclear how information was gathered from them. Despite this, actions taken by the service were appropriate to keep people safe.

Not all people were involved in their own care; however other people felt they were able to contribute to care plans. Some people told us their initial assessment had been rushed, and they were not often asked for their opinion. However, all people using the service felt their basic needs were well supported. Relevant referrals had been made to address any additional support people needed.

The registered manager told us there were external organisations the provider worked with to ensure people’s experience was well planned. The service demonstrated an awareness of the risk across the broader health and social care landscape and advocated appropriately for people where needed.

Staff and the manager sought advice and support from external partners and explored ways of meeting people’s needs.

People were safe because the provider had effective processes. There were systems to ensure calls had been completed. We looked at the live view of where staff were allocated and found that calls were provided on time, and staff stayed with people for their allocated time. The care coordinator told us that this information was reviewed regularly to ensure care was being provided in line with people’s assessed needs. The manager assessed people’s care needs, and the person using the service was involved. The manager undertook risk assessments before staff provided care to ensure this service was appropriate for people wishing to use it.

People and their families generally felt safe with staff at this service when receiving care. People were able to raise concerns with managers if needed and had access to an out of hours on call system. However, people's experience was mixed as to whether their request for carers of a specific gender were respected.

Staff understood safeguarding principles and how to protect people from harm. At the time of our site visit, not all staff had completed safeguarding training and understood how to protect people from abuse. Seven out of 28 staff were out of date with this training. However, by January 2025, the number of staff had reduced to 20 and all were in date for safeguarding adults level 2 training.

The registered manager worked collaboratively with external partners when dealing with safeguarding matters. The service had a comprehensive safeguarding policy, which had been reviewed within the last year. The policy gave clear information for staff who may need to make a safeguarding referral and provided the details of the local authority safeguarding team relevant to Simply The Best.

People using the service told us that all staff involved them with their decisions about how they would like their care provided. Care planning documents set out ways to help people achieve their aims and improve what people can do rather than what they cannot do. People using the service who spoke with us told us they discussed their concerns with staff and management about what they could and could not do and how they would like support. People using the service felt their basic needs were well supported. Other people told us they were able to provide information to carers which was then incorporated into care plans.

Staff knew the importance of getting to know each person to ensure they could respond to any changes in that person’s needs. Staff ensured that people's preferences and choices were recorded and subsequently maintained. The manager sought advice and support from external partners and explored ways of meeting people’s needs.

Care plans detailed people’s health conditions, and people using the service participated in recording their choices.

People were involved in completing risk assessments to assess the safety of the environment they lived in. This meant they had input into equipment that was needed and how it should be used.

Staff told us environmental assessments of people’s homes were completed to minimise any hazards that may be present in people’s homes.

The manager completed environmental risk assessments to ensure staff could safely care for and support people in their homes. This was to provide and highlight any risk factors that could affect staff ability to undertake safe and effective care. People's care plans showed that people needing equipment were in place, and a risk assessment was completed.

People and their relatives told us there were generally enough staff to undertake their care to a good standard. However, some people told us that staff turnover seemed high and they often had new or different staff who came to care for them. Whilst some people found this acceptable, a small number of other people did not like this with one person telling us they felt unsafe.

Staff confirmed that training was being provided and updated as required. However, not all staff were fully up to date with their training at the time of our site visit. For example, out of 26 staff, 6 staff were not up to date with falls prevention training. Five staff were not up to date with their fire safety awareness training and 8 staff were not up to date with infection prevention and control training. We requested updated information from the management which was received in January 2025. The manager told us where staff were not compliant with mandatory training; staff were supported to complete this. If staff did not subsequently manage to complete training they were removed from the rota until compliant. An updated training record for all staff supported this. The document showed the service now had 20 staff and all were compliant with training.

There were enough staff to ensure people were safely supported. We saw staff had sufficient time to make their calls to support people and to travel between calls. Staff were recruited through an effective recruitment process. Appropriate checks had been completed before staff started work, including disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks. DBS provides information, including details about convictions and cautions on the police national computer postal, about prospective staff. The information helps employers make safe recruitment decisions.

We carried out this assessment in response to concerns that had been raised about how people from overseas were employed. We reviewed 6 staff records and found that checks had been made to ensure the person was permitted to work and references had been sought. Where staff had restrictions on their work licenses the rota showed that staff were only given hours within their permitted allowances. The provider worked in line with the Home Office scheme to ensure that all aspects of paperwork and costs were reflective of current government legislation.

There were systems to ensure calls were answered in a timely manner. We looked at the live view of where staff were allocated and found that calls were answered on time and staff were staying for the allocated time with people. The care co-ordinator told us that this information was reviewed regularly to ensure care was being provided in line with people’s assessed needs. All new staff completed a probation period. Staff completed shadowing shifts with other staff until they felt confident working alone. Management completed spot checks to ensure that staff remained competent in their role.

People stated that staff were careful when disposing of cleaning when support was provided for continence needs. When supporting people in their homes and providing personal care, staff used appropriate personal protective equipment such as disposable gloves and aprons. People confirmed that staff were consistent in this practice.

Staff were aware of the processes to follow to keep people safe from infections.

Systems and processes were in place to protect people and prevent and control the risk of infection. Staff had access to a comprehensive infection prevention and control policy which was personalised to the service and had links to national clinical best practice.

People using the service told us they were supported safely and effectively with their medicines. One person told us, "I had my medication when the staff were there; they made sure I took my medication as prescribed."

All staff completed medication training before supporting people with their medication. Staff told us they would call the on-call service for advice if there were any concerns regarding medicine.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure people’s medicines were administrated safely. The registered manager monitored medicine administration and received electronic alerts if people did not have their medicines. This meant any missed medicines could be identified quickly. The registered manager completed audits regularly.