CSK Support 24 Ltd Northampton

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

We found that there had been some improvements in the management of medicines but further improvements were required. At the last inspection there was a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 as there was a lack of guidance around ‘as required’ medication. There were improvements in this area and the service was no longer in breach. However, some people did not have sufficient gaps between ‘as required’ medication which had not been identified. Risk assessments did not always contain sufficient information and this was not always personalised. Evidence reviewed showed that staff were aware of how to safeguard people from abuse. Staff were recruited safely.

This service scored 59 (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 and their relatives told us they felt safe. They told us “[relative] feels very safe with the carers, [there is] no sign of any form of abuse ever and [relative] can show challenging behaviours at times.” And “I feel very safe and happy [with staff]”

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities to record and report any safeguarding concerns. Staff told us they had received safeguarding training, and the records we saw confirmed this. All staff told us they would report any incidents they felt needed investigation. Staff told us safeguarding reporting procedures were discussed regularly in supervision and team meetings.

The provider had effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. Where any safeguarding concerns were identified, investigations were completed and appropriate plans were implemented to protect people from potential harm.

People and their relatives were involved in care planning and risk assessments. They told us “The care plan was discussed with the Care Co-ordinator with a risk assessment and plan. They use electronic notes which I can access.” Where care plans and risk assessments did not have adequate information people did not come to any harm.

Staff knew the people they supported well, and this enabled them to keep people safe and reduced the risk of harm. Staff told us how they encouraged and supported people to make choices to reduce risks and stay safe, whilst also respecting people's rights to make their own decisions within a risk assessment framework.

Care plans did not always contain accurate information in relation to the risks involved with catheter care. Conflicting information was recorded in the catheter care plan about the type of catheter in use and therefore the directions on how to care for the person’s catheter were incorrect. There were risk assessments in place for various aspects of people's care such as the risks of pressure damage to the skin and hazards such as the risk of choking. Staff reviewed these regularly and updated them as necessary, however, the conflicting information on catheter care had not been identified.

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 and their relatives told us that staff supported them when they were expecting them and stayed the required length of time. They said “…everyday they come approximately on time. They’re only a bit late when they stay longer with people.” And “[staff] stay for the full length of time.” “They stay until they’re finished.” People told us staff were sufficiently trained and familiar with their needs. They said “Staff have good skills. They sometimes bring a new colleague and they get to know me well.”

Staff confirmed there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Where people required 2 staff to support with their care needs, staff confirmed this was in place. People were supported by staff who felt confident and competent to assist and care for people. The registered manager ensured staff were equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s physical and psychological needs. Staff confirmed the training they received was effective. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager, provider and other colleagues.

There were robust recruitment procedures in place. The provider undertook checks on new staff before they started work. This included checking their identity, their eligibility to work in the UK, obtaining at references from previous employers and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable people. The provider had processes in place to ensure staff were knowledgeable about their role and their competencies were assessed on a regular basis. Staff were supported their role with regular supervisions and team meetings.

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.

Where people received help with their medication, they were happy with how this was managed. They told us “The carers give me my medication in the morning and in the evening. They are well trained.” However people did not always receive their medicines safely. One person who was prescribed paracetamol to be taken as required did not always have the prescribed gap between doses. This had not been identified by staff or the provider. This was rectified during the on site assessment.

Staff told us they had received training in administering medicines and their competencies were assessed. However, staff had been administering prescribed medicine to a person without the appropriate time gap between doses. The provider and registered manager were not knowledgeable about the time gaps required between doses.

The provider had systems and processes in place to ensure medicine records were audited regularly. However, errors found during the assessment had not been identified. The provider ensured staff received training and competency checks to ensure they were assessed as competent in medicines administration.