Molly Care Ltd

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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. 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. Accidents and untoward incidents were investigated, used to inform any changes to the service, and the provider apologised when things went wrong.

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. The manager understood the importance of working with health and social care professionals to ensure people received appropriate support. A healthcare professional told us, “I see us as part of the same team working together for the same common goal,” and “I have a good professional relationship with them. We always receive appropriate referrals from this care agency to our community therapy team”.

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. People and family members all said they felt safe with the staff. One person told us, “I absolutely feel safe in their hands.” Staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding and where they had concerns, they had raised these appropriately meaning action could be taken if required. Staff members told us how they would pick up on potential signs of abuse, one said, “If the person seemed distressed, I would see that as a red flag, for example, not chatty like usual, you get a gut feeling about people.” Another told us if they had any concerns, “They would tell the manager straight away.”

The service usually worked well with people to understand and manage risks. Some people's health risks had not always been fully assessed. For one person who had recently begun using the service, staff had not fully considered self-medication risks and choices the person made and the risk of falls and additional consideration when taking anti-coagulant medicines. We also identified additional information for risk assessments relating to diabetes was required. The manager took prompt action to review the information they had in place, contacted the GP for further advice and ensured the detail was added to support plans. The lack of risk assessments or detail within risk assessments was mitigated as care staff understood the actions they should take to manage these risks.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They ensured equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The provider ensured they assessed potential risks associated with staff visiting people's homes, for example potential access issues. Staff confirmed they could access relevant information prior to visiting a person's home and had received training to use any equipment in place.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff who received effective support, supervision and development. However, we identified not all pre-employment checks had been fully completed prior to staff commencing work. The recently appointed manager took action to further strengthen the recruitment check processes and sought the missing pre-employment information. . People and family members told us they had continuity of care staff who usually attended on time and always stayed for the correct length of time. People and their relatives told us how support times could be flexible and they just had to ring the office. Some also told us when staff were running late, staff in the office would ring them to let them know.

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. Care staff had received infection control and food hygiene training. Systems were in place to ensure staff had adequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE). The manager told us they monitored staff practice through regular spot checks.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Staff and training records confirmed staff had received medication administration training and had their competency assessed. Staff understood actions they should take if they had concerns with medicines administration and had acted appropriately when this had occurred. One staff member told us about the processes they followed when a person was prescribed a new medicine, “We call the office and they add the details to the EMAR (Electronic Medication Administration Record).”