CareTech Community Services Limited - 237 Kenton Road

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 were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks about people’s safety were assessed to ensure they were supported to remain as safe as possible. The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff working for the service. Appropriate recruitment and selection processes were in place.

This service scored 75 (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.

Staff were clear about their responsibilities to report concerns and were able to describe the action they would take if they witnessed or suspected any abusive or neglectful practice. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities on how to protect people from abuse and what actions they would take where there was an allegation of abuse.

Appropriate safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures were in place and provided guidance about the action to take if staff had concerns about the welfare of people. Training records showed staff had completed safeguarding training and staff were confident about raising concerns. The registered manager had a system in place for recording and monitoring safeguarding concerns which helped them maintain a clear oversight over this.

People and their relatives were involved in the delivery of care and support. Risks to people were identified and managed to help keep people safe. Risk assessments were person centred and included information about how to minimise the associated risks.

There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home. We observed people and staff had positive interactions. People looked comfortable in the presence of staff and were safely supported by staff where necessary.

Potential risks about people’s safety were assessed to ensure they were supported to remain as safe as possible. Risk assessments were informative and gave staff guidance on how to support people safely. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly to ensure they were still relevant and help ensure people were receiving safe care and support.

Staff were aware of people’s individual health needs and helped ensure they were safe when carrying out any tasks. Risk assessments provided guidance on what action they should take to reduce risks and to keep people safe. Staff were encouraged to report new risks so that appropriate action could be taken to ensure the safety of people.

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

On the day of the site visit, we observed staff were not rushed and were able to spend time interacting and speaking with people whilst carrying out duties. The registered manager and staff were visible in the home and took a genuine interest in people. People were supported by a consistent team of staff and were able to build meaningful relationships.

Staff told us there were sufficient staffing numbers and they were able to safely meet people’s needs with current staffing levels. Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager and said that they received regular supervisions. Staff told us they worked well as a team and were complimentary about the training they received.

People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills required to meet their needs. The provider had a training programme for all staff to complete. Records showed that staff had received training in various key areas relevant to their roles. There was a system in place which enabled the registered manager to monitor training and ensure that staff continuously updated this where necessary. Staff received appropriate supervision which provided opportunities to discuss their performance and professional development. Pre-employment checks had been carried out to help ensure staff were suitable to support people safely. There was an induction period for new staff. The induction covered their familiarisation with the service, the people who used it and the policies and procedures of the provider. The registered manager regularly reviewed staffing numbers to ensure there were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to provide personalised care and support.

People spoke positively about the staff who cared for them. A person told us, “I just don’t want to leave this place. It really feels like my only home I know. Because of staff and how much they know about me and how best to help me.” A relative said, “[Person] have staff who know and understand their routine well and they all respect [person].” People were supported by a staff team which included regular consistent staff and this helped to ensure people received continuity of care.

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.