CSK Support 24 Ltd Northampton

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We found that the audits carried out by the service were ineffective at identifying the issues we saw in medicines management and risk assessment. They did not identify that medicines had been consistently administered without the required 4 hours gap. Protocols for ‘as required’ medication did not contain enough information and audits had incorrectly recorded one person as not having a topical cream applied. This constituted a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Changes were made to rectify this at the time of the on site assessment.

This service scored 50 (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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Managers did not always have effective governance systems in place to enable them to be assured by their own audits of the quality and safety of the service they provided. Staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities, however, they failed to recognise they were administering medicine against the prescribers instructions. Staff told us the provider and registered manager provided support, and they felt confident approaching the management team. The registered manager understood their responsibilities in relation to duty of candour. Duty of candour is a professional responsibility, to be honest with people when things go wrong.

The provider failed to have accurate systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service. Care plans did not always provide person centred guidance to enable staff to care for people safely. Audits were not effective in identifying issues with medicines management. The provider took immediate action upon the concerns being identified during the on-site assessment.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.