Care 2 U Limited

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 received safe care. Their needs were assessed before they started using the service. This was reviewed when needed and care plans and risk assessments were in place that reflected this. There were enough staff available to deliver care to people.

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.

As part of this assessment, we asked for feedback from the local authority. They raised no concerns with the safety of care.

People and relatives felt their transition into using the service was safe and felt involved with the process. One person said, “The care plan was done with me, and Care 2 U. I have been with them for 9 months.” A relative told us, “They are aware of the risks. They have been assessing for the last 2 years. Me and the registered manager did the care plan, he came 6 months ago to see that my relations needs are met.”

Staff and leaders described the process that was undertaken before they commenced a new package of care. The nominated individual told us they ensured they had enough staff and completed an assessment to ensure they could meet the needs of people. They explained they would work alongside other professionals to ensure their recommendations and advice was followed. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider.

We saw and records confirmed that assessments were completed before care packages commenced. This ensured people and those important to them were involved with this process. When assessments had been completed by other health professionals’ staff were aware of these and these were reflected in people’s plans.

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

Risk to people were managed in a safe way. People had their individual risks about their health and well-being assessed and planned for. Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and provided staff with the guidance needed to keep people safe. This included people’s mobility needs, how people communicated and when they had a health condition. These plans also reflected advice from other health professionals. They were reviewed regularly or when changes occurred to ensure staff had the most up to date information. There were systems in place to ensure information and changes to people’s care was effectively shared. We saw recorded how people and relatives were involved with managing their risks and they had been involved with this process.

Staff and leaders understood people’s risks and the support they needed. Staff told us of the importance of this. One staff member said, “We read care plans to get to know people. When they start with us, someone from the office will have gone out and completed an assessment, so we have all the information available to us.” The registered manager and the nominated individual were able to tell us about the processes that were in place to ensure people’s risks were considered. They explained they had plans and processes in place to ensure these were regularly reviewed and ensured people and those important to them were part of this process.

People felt staff knew and understood their risks and felt safe when supported by them. Relatives shared these views. One person told us, “I have a hoist and yes, I feel safe with them using it. With regards to my care and safety they move me only when necessary. I have a care plan it was done by myself and Care 2 U.” A relative told us. “My relation feels safe and gets on well with the carers.”

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

Staff and leaders felt there were enough staff available. One staff member said, “There are enough staff, we are on runs and we know where we are going in advance. There are always 2 of us and we are never short.” The nominated individual explained there was ongoing recruitment to ensure staff were consistently available so new packages of care could be delivered if needed.

There were enough safely recruited staff available to support people. The records we reviewed showed us people received the correct care they needed at their preferred times. There was a system in place that ensured the correct number of staff were available for people and this was monitored to ensure calls were effectively delivered. Staff had received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people. This included mandatory training and training that was specific to people’s individual needs. We reviewed the training matrix, and this confirmed staffs training was up to date. Staff had received the relevant pre-employment checks before they could start working in people’s homes to ensure they were safe to do so.

People and relatives were mostly happy with their call times. People felt they had a consistent care team, generally knew who was coming and if staff were late would let them know. One person told us, “They generally stay for the full amount of time unless I say `we are finished now, you can go.” A relative said, “If they are running late the office rings me. We stipulated a time and they agreed to them so it`s usually 7:30am to 8am and they stay as long enough as needed. Never missed and always 2 of them. We are lucky as we get the same carers, they know [person’s name] and know our situation. Always enough staff and always 2 carers.”

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.