G&C HEALTHCARE 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 had mixed feedback about the punctuality of staff. Some people told us they were often late and others told us they were generally on time. There was also mixed feedback about whether staff had ID badges on, so people knew who was supporting them. However, people and relatives were all consistently positive about staff being friendly and polite. People told us staff seemed to know what they were doing, and new staff had the opportunity to shadow more experienced staff first. Staff also consistently told us they received training and demonstrated their knowledge and records confirmed this. Staff were generally recruited safely but improvements were needed to ensure necessary information was always available. There was an electronic rota system in place to allocate staff to attend to people’s calls. However, the electronic rotas showed staff were often allocated to 2 different calls for different people at the same time. This meant staff would have to decide which call to attend first and this may impact staff’s ability to be on time. Medicines were managed safely, overall. People told us they were supported with their medicines appropriately and staff were knowledgeable about medicine processes. Some improvements were needed to ‘when required’ guidance and the recording of transdermal patch records, and provider acted on this feedback.

This service scored 53 (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.

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

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

People had mixed feedback about the punctuality of staff. Some people told us staff were often late and others told us staff were generally on time. One person said, “They are not really on time, and it is due to being stuck in traffic.” One relative told us, “The times are the biggest problem. This means [my relative’s] medication is delayed and it concerns me that it is not being taken at the same time every day. The times are not consistent, and I think there has been trouble with the carers getting transport. The office has rung to say sorry for the lateness of the calls.” One relative said, “They are usually on time, we are not bothered either way as long as they turn up eventually.” There was also mixed feedback about whether staff had ID badges on, so people knew who was supporting them. Some people told us staff always wore ID whereas others told us staff did not wear it. However, people and relatives were all consistently positive about staff being friendly and polite. One person said, “I think the carers are fabulous, lovely and I get on with them all. I know who is coming and I look forward to seeing all of them.” A relative commented, “We have got to know the carers very well, they are great, chirpy. [My relative] gets on with them very well, they have great conversations, they laugh.” People told us staff seemed to know what they were doing and new staff had the opportunity to shadow other staff first. One person said, “The carers communicate well, and we have no problems talking to them.” A relative said, “If there is a new carer starting, they will come with a carer that has been here before. The carers know what they are supposed to do, and they do want they are required to do.” Another relative said, “I feel they are prepared and knowledgeable of my [relative’s] needs.”

Staff consistently told us they received training and demonstrated their knowledge. They were able to tell us about procedures, such as safeguarding and medicines. Staff all told they had been able to shadow other staff to build confidence in their role and. Staff also told us it was positive to have some face-to-face training so they could practice on equipment. Staff all confirmed they went through a recruitment process before staring employment with G&C HEALTHCARE LTD.

There were rotas in place to allocate staff to cover a geographical area and also an electronic call monitoring system, so staff were allocated to individual calls within that geographical area. However, the electronic rotas showed staff were often allocated to 2 different calls for different people at the same time. This meant staff would have to decide which call to attend first and this may impact staff’s ability to be generally on time. This mirrored the feedback from some people and relatives about punctuality being variable. Staff were generally recruited safely; however, some improvements were needed to ensure any gaps in employment were explored and recorded. Other measures were in place to check the suitability of staff such as checks on criminal records with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), references and identity documents. Staff received training to be effective in their role. Staff had access to a range of face-to-face training in dedicated training space in the provider’s office and also online. It is mandatory for staff to complete training about learning disabilities and autistic people at a level appropriate for their role. Not all staff had yet completed this, but some had and there was a plan in place to have all staff complete this.

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.

People told us they were supported with their medicines appropriately. One person said, “I have got to know them well and they have got to know me. They check I have taken my medication.” A relative said, “Staff put the medicine in [my relative’s] mouth now. My relative has cream on, that’s always put on.”

Staff were knowledgeable about medicines processes, knew how to record the administration or refusal of medicines, for example. Staff confirmed they had training and competency checks about medicines. Staff were aware of count sheets so the stock levels of staff could be monitored and knew to sign Medication Administration Records (MARs).

Medicines were managed safely, overall. Protocols were in place to guide staff about when people may need their ‘when required’ medicines. However, these were not always clear. We fed this back to the provider, and they took immediate action to improve their records. One person was prescribed medicine in a transdermal patch. There were clear processes in place to record this and we were confident this was being applied as prescribed. However, the body map staff recorded this on indicated the application site was not always rotated often enough to follow the manufacturer’s guidance, which we fed back to the provider. There were records in place for staff to record the support given to people with their medicines. Staff used paper MARs to list and record medicines. MARs contained clear instructions, such as the dosage and frequency needed. There was also the online electronic recording system for staff to complete about medicines. The electronic records were more difficult to follow due to restrictions with the system, however the paper records meant there was a clear record of medicines. There were care plans and risk assessments in place for people’s medicines, so staff had guidance to support people safely.