Signet Healthcare Limited

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 received their medicines safely and as prescribed. However, we found some improvements were needed to medicines records to mitigate risks of errors. We discussed this with the management team. They took the required action and sent us evidence of improvements they had made following our visit. There were suitable systems for investigating and learning from safeguarding concerns, incidents and accidents. There were enough staff, and they were suitably recruited, trained and supported. Risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed and planned for.

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.

People's relatives told us the provider investigated and responded when things went wrong. They told us they thought there was good communication, and they were happy with the way the provider dealt with adverse events. One relative explained how they had felt following an incident. They said, ''The office apologised and went through all the procedures, taking statements from the carers. I was happy with the way they dealt with it.''

Staff told us that the management team spoke with them following incidents, accidents and complaints so they could learn from these.

Staff reported and recorded incidents and accidents. These were investigated by the management team. There were meetings and reflective practice sessions to discuss what had gone wrong and how improvements needed to be made. The provider had liaised with key stakeholders and people's representatives to apologise and involve them in discussions about these events.

People's relatives told us the provider supported them to access other services, making recommendations and referrals when needed.

The management team told us they worked with community healthcare professionals and others to help ensure people could access services.

We did not receive feedback from partners about this aspect of the service. Records used by the provider showed partners were involved when needed.

There were suitable processes for assessing people's needs, making referrals for extra care and support and liaising with external partners to make sure people received joined up care.

People's relatives told us people were safely cared for.

The staff understood how to recognise and report abuse and were able to tell us about safeguarding procedures.

There were systems and processes designed to safeguard people from abuse, The staff received training and information about these. The provider had liaised with other agencies, including the local safeguarding authority, when concerns had been identified.

People's relatives told us risks were appropriately managed.

Staff explained they had received training to help them manage risks. For example, how to use equipment and how to support people to move in a safe way.

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed and planned for. Risk assessments included information about how to promote and support people's independence as well as how to mitigate risks. Assessments were regularly reviewed and updated when needed.

People were cared for in their own home environments. The provider was not operating any supported living services at the time of our assessment.

Staff did not have any concerns about safe environments.

The provider assessed people's home environments and made sure these were safe. They also assessed equipment was safe to use. They discussed any concerns with the person and/or their families. They also made referrals when needed. For example, if they identified someone needed a new piece of equipment or if they identified landlords needed to rectify a fault.

People's relatives told us that care workers usually arrived on time, stayed for the agreed length of time and did not rush them. They told us they had the same regular care workers.

Staff said that they had enough time for care visits and travel between these. They explained they had the training and information they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

There were suitable systems for recruiting and selecting staff. Checks were made on staff suitability. Staff completed an induction and a range of training. The management team had oversight of this and assessed staff knowledge, competencies and skills.

People's relatives told us staff followed good hand hygiene procedures, kept people's homes clean and wore personal protective equipment (PPE) when needed.

Staff told us they had undertaken training about infection prevention and control.

The management team carried out checks on staff practice to make sure they followed procedures for infection prevention. They supplied staff with the necessary equipment and information.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Their relatives told us they were happy with this.

Staff told us they undertook training to understand about medicines. They explained managers assessed their skills and knowledge. We saw evidence of training and competency assessments.

There had been improvements to the way in which medicines were managed. We identified further improvements which were needed. For example, staff had not always explained discrepancies relating to medicines records. In some cases, there was not enough information about people's prescribed medicines. Staff had sometimes made unclear handwritten changes to records which made the information difficult to understand. We discussed these with the management team and they confirmed they had taken steps to make improvements after our visit to the service. The manager had responded when things had gone wrong and offered staff additional training and guidance.