Panacea Care

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 were safely cared for. Risks to their safety and wellbeing were assessed. They were able to make informed choices about risks and given support to understand these. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. People lived in a safe and clean environment. There were systems to investigate and learn from accidents, incidents and other adverse events and these empowered people. We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

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.

People were involved in learning from incidents. They discussed these with staff and were supported to find solutions to any problems.

Staff told us they worked with each other and people using the service when things went wrong.

We did not receive any direct feedback from external partners about this area.

Complaints, incidents, accidents and adverse events were reported, investigated and learnt from. We saw records showed these were discussed with the person and staff. When needed, improvements had been made to the service. There was an emphasis on empowering people to understand what had gone wrong and make decisions to help them and others improve their experience.

Staff told us they supported people to access other services and to learn skills to help them prepare for the future.

An external professional told us that the registered manager provided up to date information about people and helped them discuss positive outcomes for transitions.

People were supported with transitions to the service and when/if they moved to more independent settings. The provider worked with people, external professionals and people's families to help make sure they received the support they needed and had the right information. People's needs and choices were regularly reviewed, and staff had up to date information about these.

People told us they felt safe at the service. They understood what to do if they had concerns about abuse.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding about safeguarding, including how to recognise and report abuse.

Staff supported people in a safe way.

There were procedures for safeguarding people. The provider had worked with others to help make sure these were followed, and people were protected from potential abuse.

People were involved in assessing and planning for risks relating to their own care. They were supported to understand these and to take positive risks to enhance their quality of life.

Staff told us they had training to understand how to care for people safely and how to manage risks.

Risks were managed in a safe way.

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and planned for. These included risks relating to their physical and mental health as well as activities in and outside of their homes. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated.

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 told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. There was a low turnover of staff. People and their relatives explained the staff knew people well and could recognise changes in their needs or if they were becoming unwell so they could respond to this and make sure people received the right treatment.

Staff told us they felt well supported and had the information they needed for their roles. They said they had regular training, supervision and appraisals. Staff were able to describe training they had undertaken and how they used this knowledge in their roles.

People were supported by staff when they needed.

There were suitable systems to recruit and select staff. These included checks on their identity, knowledge, skills and eligibility to work in the United Kingdom. New staff undertook an induction and completed a range of training. Some staff undertook additional qualifications.

People lived in a clean environment.

Staff told us they had undertaken training about infection prevention and control.

The environment and equipment were clean.

There were procedures to help manage the risks of the spread of infection. These included deep cleaning and checks on cleanliness.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Staff told us they had completed training to understand how to manage medicines safely. Their knowledge, competencies and practice were tested by managers to make sure they followed procedures.

We observed staff offering people support with medicines. They explained what they were doing and asked the person for consent, making sure they understood why they were being offered the medicines.

Medicines were safely stored. People's medicines were regularly reviewed and monitored by healthcare professionals. People understood about their medicines. Records of medicines were clear and accurate. There were systems to audit and check medicines were well managed.