Niche Care Wakefield

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

Safe - This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating remains requires improvement. We looked at 3 quality statements. Improvements were needed in the management of risks to people as risk assessments were not reflective of care needs and lacked involvement from people. We identified a breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. Some people reported dissatisfaction with their call times. Records showed recent call times were more reliable. Recruitment of staff was found to be safe. People felt safe and safeguarding systems were effective at preventing the risk of harm and abuse.

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.

Overall people told us they felt safe in the service. Comments included, “I do feel safe with them they know what they are doing” and a relative told us “We both feel better with them coming as I can’t help and they wouldn’t feel safe without them.”

We spoke with the manager and 2 staff members during the assessment. Both the manager and staff were able to describe the signs they would look for which could indicate abuse. They understood their reporting responsibilities.

There was a clear safeguarding policy and log in place. Where required safeguarding referrals had been made to the local authority. There was evidence of detailed internal follow ups and investigations. Investigation reports and outcomes were in place, which included lessons learned and action taken to mitigate events recurring. Staff received safeguarding training as part of their initial induction.

Whilst people felt safely supported by staff, they told us there had been a lack of involvement in assessing, monitoring and reviewing risks to them. Their feedback included, “There is no copy of the care plan and no reviews have been done” and "We did the care plan with my social worker, my relative has a copy”. A relative told us, “(Staff) completed a care plan when relative was in (their previous accommodation), but as far as I know nothing has been done with this company.”

We looked at one person’s risk assessment and care plan. They had a notable health condition which placed them at risk. This information had not been added to their care records. There was no information in their care records and another person’s around meeting their dietary needs. We also identified a moving and handling risk which had not been added to the care records. A further person was recorded as needing a specific product with their meals, but when we explored this, this had been written in error, which meant there was a risk to this person. This was a breach of the legal regulation relating to safe care and treatment.

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

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about their call times. Feedback included, “Call times can very a lot, but someone always turns up”, “The times are very inconsistent, so I have to wait for the carers to arrive to get out of bed then to assist back to bed.” “They turn up just not on time, not that there seems to be set times. That said if running very late I do get a phone call to let me know”. A relative told us, “They keep to the times, my relative would tell me of they were late. If they are running late they always let us know.”

Recruitment was managed safely, and robust procedures were in place. There was a comprehensive induction programme which included 5 days initial training, shadowing, and observations. Supervision records showed staff received effective formal support. Records we looked at showed that recently people’s call times were within the expected call time range.

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.