ICare (GB) Limited - Cannock Also known as Stafford

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

This is the first assessment for this service, we assessed all quality statements. At this assessment the rating for this key question is good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. People told us staff supported them safely. Relatives told us they knew how to raise complaints or concerns with the provider. People told us they could make their own choices and decisions. Where risks to people were identified, these were risk assessed accordingly. However, some risk assessments needed to be recorded in further detail in order to clearly record the steps for staff to take following any concerns. The provider regularly carried out infection prevention control and medicine administration spot checks on staff to ensure safe practices.

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 told us they felt safe and felt confident to raise concerns with the provider. One person said, “The staff support me well. I have not raised any complaints, but I know how to.”

Staff told us incidents, accidents and lesson’s learnt were discussed in team meetings and shared via the provider's electronic system. One staff member said, “Whenever there are incidents or accidents, we discuss these in team meetings.”

Complaints were acknowledged, thoroughly investigated and responded to in a timely manner. Minutes of team meetings recorded lessons learnt, and these were shared with the staff team. Incidents and accidents were audited and analysed in order to review any trends or patterns.

Relatives told us people’s needs were thoroughly assessed prior to receiving support and following any health changes, such as a stay in hospital. One relative told us how the registered manager first discussed the person’s needs via the telephone, then followed this up with a face-to-face visit, they said, “The registered manager was wonderful with my [family member]. They made my [family member] feel comfortable which enabled them to speak freely.”

Staff told us they received information regarding people requiring support prior to meeting them. One staff member said, “We get a message in the group chat stating a new person is starting with us. We read care plans and risk assessments before going to meet with the person.”

Visiting professionals told us the service communicated effectively and raised concerns and referrals appropriately.

People’s care and support needs were regularly reviewed and risks to people were assessed. However, whilst risks to people from mobility difficulties were assessed, some of the detail recorded in these risk assessments was inconsistent. For example, where people required the use of hoists, some risk assessments were detailed, outlining the specific sling configuration, yet other people's risk assessments lacked this detail. The registered manager responded to our feedback by reviewing all mobility risk assessments and completed in-depth risk assessments.

People told us staff supported them safely. One person said, “I would rate the provider as excellent. I have never had any concerns. The staff are professional and support me safely.” Relatives told us they felt people received safe care. One relative said, “Absolutely, I would say my [family member] is safe. The staff go over and above.”

Staff told us they received safeguarding training and were confident about raising safeguarding concerns. One staff member said, “I would report any concerns directly to the registered manager. If nothing was done, I would report my concerns to the local authority safeguarding team, the number is on the office wall.”

All staff received safeguarding training. The registered manager raised safeguarding concerns with the local authority safeguarding team in accordance with their regulated duties.

People told us staff respected their decisions and encouraged them to be independent. One person said, “The staff are good. They sometimes help me to go into the garden, so I can get some air. They make sure I am warm and happy.” Relatives told us the provider respected people’s choices. One relative told us, “They encourage [my family member] to have a shower, even though they are not always keen. They try to encourage my [family member] as best they can but respect their decision.”

Staff told us they supported people to make their own decisions and take positive risks. One staff member told us about a person choosing to smoke, they said, “It's their choice. Everyone has the right to take risks. They are adults.”

People took positive risks, and these were clearly documented in care records including advice from health professionals. For example, 1 person chose to continue to sleep in the same bed with their partner as opposed to following health professional advice which recommended they sleep in a medically assisted bed. The provider respected this decision and recorded this choice clearly in the care plan.

People told us staff respected their homes and used equipment safely. One person said, “All the staff are respectful in my home. They always make sure things are put away safely.” Another person told us, “I have to be hoisted. The staff are good at using the hoist.”

Staff told us they received training on the safe use of equipment.

Care plans documented emergency stop taps for water and gas and the location of fuse boxes in people’s homes.

People told us staff were competent and confident. People said staff arrived mostly on time and stayed for the designated amount of time. One person said, “The staff are well trained and professional. They are on time and they do anything I ask.” Relatives told us the provider was flexible and would amend times of calls to suit their needs. One relative said, “The provider is responsive. If we ask them they will change times or bring calls forward or push them back.”

Staff told us they received training, support and supervision. One staff member said, “During induction the registered manager explained everything I needed to know. We have face to face training and e-learning, there is a lot of training. Other staff told us they knew people well. One staff member said, “I support the same people. I have gotten to know people well.”

Staff received regular training and training was regularly refreshed. Rota's recorded staff generally arrived on time and stayed for the designated time. Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment files showed all pre-employment checks had been made to ensure only staff who were suitable to work with people were employed.

Relatives and people told us staff used appropriate personal protective equipment when providing support. One person said, “Staff put on their gloves and aprons. Staff uphold the strictest of hygiene practices.” One relative said, “We have seen the provider carry out spot checks of the staff team, which is really good. The provider checks to make sure staff are carrying out tasks properly and wearing their gloves and aprons.”

Staff told us they received infection prevention control training, and they had access to personal protective equipment. One staff member said, "Everything we need is in the office, such as aprons, gloves and hand gel. We can help ourselves."

The provider discussed infection prevention control policies and practices in team meetings.

People told us they received their medicines safely. One person told us about how staff administered their medicines safely. They said, “The staff always administer my medicines. They [staff] definitely do this well.”

Staff told us they received safe handling of medicines training, and their competencies were regularly checked. One staff member told us they had once made an error when administering medicines. They said, “I was called into the office for a meeting. We went over everything, and they checked my competency again.”

Medicine administration records documented some discrepancies, these were investigated and resolved during this assessment. Where people received their medicine through the use of skin patches, the recording system in place did not clearly document the patch rotation. This is important to ensure the medicine can be safely absorbed into the skin. The registered manager responded to our feedback by contacting the pharmacy to check how often the patches needed to be rotated and improved recording systems to clearly record the rotation of the patch.