First City Nursing 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

In this Key question we looked at 2 quality statements related to safeguarding and safe and effective staffing. We found systems and processes were in place to keep people safe and the management team had a good oversight of this. Staff were trained and knew how to support people safely. Most people we spoke with felt safe and knew how to report any safeguarding concerns.

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.

People said they felt safe with First City Nursing Carers. For example, people said: ‘I do feel safe with them’ and ‘they are very good, I feel perfectly safe with them.’ People knew who to contact Most people felt the service responded to their concerns; however, some people said they had difficulties contacting First City Nursing about their concerns. We heard from leaders a process is in place to check for missed calls and ensure people had current information about who to contact.

We found staff had a strong understanding about safeguarding and the actions to take if they saw signs of abuse. Staff we spoke with knew the signs of abuse and how to report abuse. Leaders said they ensured staff had an understanding about safeguarding by providing effective safeguarding training. They also checked staff understanding about safeguarding through discussions at team meetings and supervisions.

We saw there was a safeguarding policy in place and staff were trained in safeguarding. We found the provider had good oversight of safeguarding incidents. Safeguarding incidents were reported appropriately, and action taken to make people safe. For example, seeking medical advice and reviewing care plans with people. Leaders said there was a process in place to ensure people had current contact information and to ensure all calls from people were responded to.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

Most people we spoke with said they were happy with support from the staff. However, some people we spoke with told us staff were late for visits. We heard sometimes the office would phone ahead to let them know a visit would be late, however some people said they had not been informed. Some people said staff do not stay the full duration of the expected time. For example, we heard such comments as, ‘some just rush off.’ And ‘they are supposed to be here for 30 minutes, but they are there for barely 10 minutes at the most. However other people said they don’t feel rushed, or staff will stay longer if they need to. For example, if their relative has fallen. People said staff were trained, and most staff had read the person’s care plan to know what needed to be done. However some people were unsure if staff had read the person’s care plan because the care plan is held electronically.

The Registered Manager said they ensured staff complete mandatory training, and they seek additional training by working in partnership with other organisations and health professionals. We heard staff were trained and felt supported by the management team to do their job safely. Staff spoke positively about the training and their induction.

We saw systems were in place to ensure staff were trained and new staff had an in-depth induction. This included new staff shadowing an experienced member of staff for a length of time dependent on new staff individual experience and needs. On review of records, the provider demonstrated they regularly audited staff performance, including checking staff were visiting people in line with people’s care plan. We saw the provider addressed shortfalls found in these audits through staff supervision or team meetings. There was a system in place to make sure people got critical support they needed in the event support was delayed. For example, contingency arrangements were in place for people who took time-sensitive medication.

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.