NCC First Support - Eastern

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement and there was one breach of regulation relating to safe care and treatment. At this inspection, the rating has changed to good and the service is no longer in breach. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Records demonstrated this and staff confirmed the same. One staff member said, “I am always kept up to date with accidents and incidents and the managers are good at using these to reflect on what we can improve in the future and how to avoid anything happening again.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. This was especially important given the type of support the service provided. We saw that relevant information was shared to ensure people could safely return to their homes as quickly as possible with appropriate support in place.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm, and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Systems were in place to achieve this including staff training, incident reporting and auditing, and a safeguarding log that recorded events, actions, and outcomes.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive, and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them; they worked in collaboration with people to manage risk. However, associated risk assessments were not robust enough and whilst risk was being managed practically, records did not provide enough information for staff. For example, whilst equipment was in place to manage a person’s risk of falls and we saw from visit records staff took appropriate action to mitigate that risk, the associated care records did not provide staff with enough information around that risk and the management of it. However, the service had identified this shortfall and had an action plan in place to address it.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. For example, an environmental risk assessment was completed for the home of each new person who used the service with the view to protecting them, and staff, from avoidable harm. We saw where action was required to mitigate the risk, this had been taken.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision, and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs and were encouraged to develop by undertaking qualifications. People told us this, staff demonstrated this, and records confirmed it. A person who used the service said this about the staff, “I am impressed with them, all very helpful and patient with me. One carer listened to me and determined I was in the right place mentally before they left.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. For example, the service had policies and procedures in place and staff received training in infection prevention and control (IPC). The people who used the service told us staff always adhered to good IPC practice including the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) with one telling us, “Cleanliness is very high for them (staff).”

Whilst we found no instances where people came to harm, improvements were required in relation to medicines management. For example, records did not always provide a full and accurate account of people’s medicines. However, people had been fully involved in the management and administration of their medicines which met their needs, capacities, and preferences . The service was responsive to our feedback regarding medicines and told us they would take action to address.