Just a Little Company

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’s safety was promoted, and risks were assessed and managed. People were involved in their care and staff communicated with people in ways they understood. Staff were reliable and people had built up positive relationships with the staff that cared for them. Staff were trained in areas relevant to people’s care needs. However, not all notifications had not been submitted to The Care Quality Commission for safeguarding incidents and some risk assessments lacked detail. The Mental Capacity Act policy required review.

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.

People felt safe with the care they received. Staff listened to them and they could raise anything they were worried about with staff or the managers.

Leaders were experienced in investigating safeguarding incidents and taking action to help ensure people were protected from abuse. A range of initiatives were in place, alongside appropriate training, to help ensure an open and transparent culture where people and staff could feel confident to raise any concerns. Leaders promoted people’s consent and choices in their care and understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) but had not needed to complete any mental capacity assessments themselves to inform people’s care plans. Staff had been trained and understood how to identify indicators of potential abuse and what actions to take to help promote people’s safety. Staff consistently felt their managers would take the right actions to safeguard people if they went to them with any concerns. Staff promoted people’s decision making and provided them with choices over their care.

Processes to promote the principles of safeguarding were in place and details on how to help keep people safe were communicated widely and creatively. People who used the service contributed their own experiences to help compliment staffs’ knowledge and understanding. People and staff were encouraged to speak up through a variety of different ways. Where safeguarding incidents had occurred, the provider had investigated these and had taken any actions needed to help ensure people’s safety. Providers must notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of certain changes, events or incidents, including when abuse or allegations of abuse had been made. However, the provider had failed to notify CQC of 2 safeguarding incidents. This was discussed with the registered manager who acknowledged they had not been sent as required. In addition, the provider’s policy on the Mental Capacity Act did not provide details on when the provider themselves would need to complete mental capacity assessments to inform people’s care plans.

People felt they were involved in managing any risks associated with their health and care needs. Staff understood what care people needed, and helped to promote their safety.

Leaders made sure they understood people’s preferred methods of communication and trained staff to use these, for example, digital communication tools. This helped to ensure people were involved in managing any risks associated with their health and care needs. Leaders believed people were the experts in their own care and were committed to listening to them and involving them. Leaders worked with other health care professionals and shared information effectively to help ensure any risks associated with for example, helping people transfer, were safely managed. Care plans and risk assessments were currently held electronically. Leaders identified this meant people did not have paper copies in their own homes to refer to. They were in the process of sending paper copies to people at the time of our assessment. This would help ensure people knew about their care and how their risks were managed. Staff understood people’s communication methods, and this helped to ensure people were involved in understanding any risks associated with their health. People’s care plans and risk assessments were personalised and this helped them to identify and reduce risks when providing care to people. They felt people were supported to be independent and were free from any unnecessary restrictions. Staff understood what actions to take in an emergency and told us they had access to an on-call system for contacting managers out of hours if needed.

Individual risks to people from their associated health care needs were assessed and actions to reduce them were identified. However, some risk assessments lacked detail on the equipment used to help people transfer and 1 person’s care plan and risk assessment had not been updated to reflect a change to their skin integrity. Organisational risks were identified, and clear action plans were in place to help the business continue to operate under any foreseeable challenges, for example, during bad weather.

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

Staff arrived to people’s homes when expected. If staff did run late people were informed and it was for an understandable reason and did not happen often. People did not usually experience many changes in their staff team which helped them receive care from staff they had built up a relationship with. People considered staff to be capable and knowledgeable in how to care for them.

Leaders planned people’s call times to try and meet their preferences wherever possible and tried to ensure calls were on-time. Call times were adjusted as necessary when needed. Leaders supported staff with training and development and had a number of initiatives to encourage staff to seek any support they needed and to help ensure they felt safe and supported at work. Leaders felt they had a stable and trusted workforce and looked to recognise and reward staff for their contributions. They recognised how important relationships between staff and the people they supported were. As such, they actively supported people’s involvement in the recruitment processes for staff who would work with them. Staff had enough time to spend with people and they did not feel under pressure or rushed. They had enough time to travel between calls. Staff were available to cover any calls should they have to take leave.

Processes were in place to ensure staff were trained and had relevant skills and competencies to work with people safely. Managers and staff had clear roles and there were enough staff to provide people’s care and operate an office for the administration and management of the service. Staff met with managers to review their performance and achievements as well as their well-being. Recruitment checks on staff were completed, for example checks were made against the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. However, it is also a requirement for providers to check for any gaps in staffs’ previous work history. The provider’s recruitment records did not provide assurances that this had been checked to the expected standard required for staff recruited to work in a regulated activity.

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.