Carepoint Services

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

Safeguarding systems, processes and practices were effective to help ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and neglect.

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.

During the assessment, we received feedback from people who used the service. Some people told us there was a language barrier with some new care workers, but they felt safe with the care and support they received. We received comments like “Yes, I’m safe and I have trust in them,” and “My [family member] loved and looks forwards to [care worker] visits.” After the site visit, we discussed this with the registered manager. The registered manager put measures in place for extra English language support for care workers who may require it.

Staff told us they were well supported by the registered manager. A staff member told us “If a person refuses entry or declines care…you need to gently try to gain their trust and confidence. If the person will not let us in, we will call the office to report the issue straight away. Sometimes we have to change carers, we try to match the carers to the person needing care. Another staff member told us “I always have patience. I want people to feel able to tell me if they are scared or worried if someone is abusing them. I would tell my supervisor.

We saw records confirming the registered manager had made referrals to the local authority safeguarding team. CQC had not received statutory notifications for 2 recent safeguarding concerns which had been reported to the local authority. The registered manager notified CQC retrospectively regarding these concerns. There were safeguarding adults and whistle blowing procedures in place. All staff had received training in safeguarding adults and children from abuse. Staff understood the different types of abuse people might face and were confident about raising concerns. Staff felt they knew people well and would look out for signs cues if people who were unable to express their concerns. People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed prior to them using the service. The registered manager and staff had received training and understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Staff told us they asked for people’s consent before providing them with care and support.

We received mixed feedback relating to people feeling involved with managing risks. One family member told us, “I do think some of the risk assessments are a bit over-zealous. Social services and health services did the risk assessments, not Carepoint.” Another person told us, “Because of my condition, I am literally in their hands. …They will treat [my condition], keep an eye on it, and if they need, they will call the nurse.”

Staff told us risk assessments identified people’s specific risks and what they should do to reduce or manage risks with people. If people’s risks changed, staff were confident that managers would update people’s care records promptly.

People were supported to take risks balanced on their safety and their health care needs. Risks to people had been assessed to ensure their needs were safely met. Assessments included risk for people in areas such as falls, skin integrity and medicines. Risk assessments included information for staff about the actions to take to minimise the risk of accidents occurring. Risk assessments had also been carried out in people’s homes relating to health and safety and the environment to protect people and staff who provided care. Staff received training on fire safety, moving and handling, falls awareness and health and safety. Care records included information to guide staff on how to work with people safely.

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 in relation to new staff providing care for. We were told some new care workers had to be told what to do by people they were supporting. One person told us, “They do a good job, but they are sending more and more different people and I find it a bit confusing.”

Staff told us they believed that the staffing levels were safe. One staff member told us, “Yes, I’m not aware of any problems, I’ve never had any issues with our team of carers. Another told us, “Yes, [there are definitely enough staff to care for people at all times], I am happy with my rota. There is enough time for calls, so sometimes if [I] have too much time left I will do extra things for my clients.”

We looked at 25 recruitment records for care workers. We found 8 files which had information missing, such as DBS checks, full employment histories, right to work in the UK checks and reference checks from previous employers. We notified the registered manager of the missing information who quickly made contact with care workers to gather the missing information. The registered manager also liaised with service providers where care workers had been transferred from to ensure all of the recruitment files of Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Rights (TUPE) care workers had all of the information required to comply with schedule 3.

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.