Care 4 All 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

During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns around the management of risk which resulted in a breach of regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below. People were not always protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Care plans were not clear or robust in identifying and mitigating risks. There were sufficient staff in place to meet people’s needs.

This service scored 72 (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 spoke with 4 relatives. All were happy with the service and felt their loved one was safe with the care staff. One relative said, "Mum is absolutely safe with the carers."

Staff told us they received safeguarding training and were aware of their responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe. The registered manager understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and was aware of how and when they should share information of concern.

People were not always protected from the risk of harm and abuse as care records did not accurately reflect their needs. Staff received safeguarding training. There was a safeguarding policy in place

Staff told us they discussed any risks with people and senior staff which fed into the care plan. Staff were unclear on how often these risks were reviewed.

Relatives told us care staff communicate well and provide advice on who to contact if they have any concerns; Despite positive feedback on the care received, records showed that the care people actually received was not always safe because risks to them had not always been identified and mitigated. This exposed people to risks they would not be aware of.

Risk assessments were not always in place or did not contain enough detail, which meant mitigation measures to keep people safe were not always known to staff. Where people had been identified as being at a high risk to hazards, for example; moving and positioning and pressure sores, there was no full assessment to explore this further to support people and staff to reduce these risks.

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

Relatives told us they felt staff had received the right training to support their loved one. One relative said, " The staff have been able to educate us, [name of carer] is absolutely amazing."

The provider did not follow robust recruitment practices. We found missing and inaccurate information in staff recruitment records. Training was not always facilitated by a suitably qualified instructor.

Staff were able to describe the recruitment process, including interview, references, and DBS checks. Staff confirmed they received appropriate training; including training specific to diagnosed conditions, and received regular supervisions and support from senior staff.

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.