Abi-support Ltd

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 identified a breach of legal regulations. There were not sufficient checks to ensure fit and proper persons were employed in line with legislation. For example, there were significant gaps in application forms around employment history and references were not followed up. This meant people could be at risk of receiving care from staff that had not been properly vetted. Some staff told us they had not received the training as detailed on the provider’s training matrix. This meant they were not always confident in delivering all aspects of their roles. A high level of staff had not received required moving and handling training. People and relatives felt staff were caring and supportive in their roles. Records reviewed did not always evidence accurate information such as risk assessments and guidance on catheter care. The information about people’s needs was not always correct. Individual medicines audits had taken place but there was no overall audit plan to note any themes/actions needed to make improvements where needed. People’s feedback did not evidence any direct concerns in relation to the management of medicines. Partner feedback said there had been concerns with the overall quality of care, timings of calls and some health and safety issues. They said these had not been reported by the provider but that the registered manager had been responsive to concerns raised and thorough in investigations.

This service scored 19 (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.

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

People and their relatives did not feedback any concerns in respect of care staff managing their risks.

Staff told us, not all information about people’s care needs was up to date and accurate. One staff member said, "It all needs to be updated, medicine information is incorrect in care plans". Staff told us they had not always received the training to meet all people's assessed needs and mitigate risks. One member of staff told us, “I had to google how to do some tasks as had not had training”. This put people at risk of not having their needs safely met.

People’s care records reviewed did not always evidence information such as risk assessments and guidance on catheter care. There was some incorrect information in people’s care plans . For example, one person’s care plan said they required their medicines to be administered through a patch. As there was no guidance for this, we queried what the patch was for and we were informed the person had not been prescribed such medicines.

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 did not express any concerns in their feedback about staff.

Some staff told us they had not always completed an induction, training and shadowing other staff before lone working. Some staff told us they had not received the training the provider had informed us had been delivered. This meant some staff did not feel properly prepared to safely meet all people's assessed needs.

The provider failed to ensure sufficient recruitment checks had been carried out to ensure fit and proper persons had been employed in line with legislation. For example, there were significant gaps in application forms around employment history and references were not followed up. This meant people could be at risk of receiving care from staff that had not been properly vetted. This was a breach of legal regulations. This could put people at risk of receiving unsafe care from staff that had not been properly vetted. Effective systems were not always in place to ensure the provider had delivered the required training to meet people’s needs. Despite the training matrix stating training had been delivered, we heard from a number of staff that they had not received the training they required to do their jobs, such as moving and handling and catheter 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.

People and their relatives did not express any concerns in their feedback about the safe management of medicines.

Some staff informed us they had not always had the required training to safely administer medicines and moving and handling.

Individual medicines audits had taken place but there was no overall audit plan to identify any themes and actions needed to make improvements where needed. People’s feedback did not evidence any direct concerns in relation to the management of medicines. We received feedback from a partner organisation that they attended a staff meeting and some questions from care staff indicated a lack of knowledge and training, especially regarding medication administration.