Carers Direct Homecare 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

Processes did not always ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. Medicines record keeping was not always robust and the provider's audits did not always identify this. This resulted in breaches of Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 Good governance of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below. Evidence reviewed showed staff were recruited safely and people were supported by staff that knew them well. People told us staff told worked with them to support them safely.

This service scored 69 (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.

The provider's systems were not always effective at ensuring people’s safety. For example, people’s assessment documents were not always kept up to date and consequently did not accurately reflect people’s needs. This meant staff did not always have access to clear guidance on people’s needs or how to keep them safe.

Staff told us they felt systems supported safe care. One member of staff told us they would update people’s documentation in the event of an incident to minimise future risk.

People told us they felt safe receiving care from the service. One relative told us, “Oh yes [relative] is very happy and feels safe with the carers, as they speak to [relative] in [relative's] natural language and understand the needs well.”

The provider worked with partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. One partner told us, "This provider is responsive to concerns raised and will provide us with a detailed outcome and any actions that will or may be followed up by them and when these have been completed, the provider will keep us informed at every step with clear communication in a friendly and professional manner."

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

People told us staff told worked with them to support them safely. One person told us, "My carer helps me to get on my stairlift when I need to go upstairs. [Carer] does help me very safely and knows what [they] needs to do to support me."

Processes did not always ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. For example, people’s care plans did not always contain accurate information about their care needs. This meant staff did not always have access to guidance on how to deliver care in line with people’s needs and personal choices.

Staff told us they supported people to make safe day to day decisions by informing them of risk and promoting safety. One staff member described how they maintain positive communication and encouraged people when being supported with mobility equipment.

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 told us they felt supported by the registered manager and felt they received the training they needed to support people safely. One staff member told us, "[Manager] is a very good person, very polite. [Manager] always offers more training."

The provider's systems and processes for ensuring staff were suitably trained were mostly effective. Monitoring tools were in place and the provider was proactive at seeking new training opportunities for staff. Staffing rotas were scheduled and monitored to ensure people received their care visits. Feedback from people and their relatives indicated staff mostly arrived on time.

Feedback from people and their relatives about staff was consistently positive. One relative told us, "Yes I do think staff have had the training to support [relative], and as all staff are regular carers, they do know the routine."

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 raised concerns with the provider regarding medicine record keeping and oversight. They told us they would review their system for monitoring medication records and intended to recruit new members of the team to assist with quality oversight.

People’s experience of the support they received with their medicines was consistently positive. People told us they received the care and support they needed with their medicines. One relative said, "I can’t praise the care staff enough."

The provider’s medicine processes, and oversight of record keeping was not always effective. We found gaps in people’s medicine administration records and audits had not identified these errors. This meant the provider’s systems required improvement to ensure effective oversight of medicines.