Delore Care East Sussex

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

Staff were aware of their responsibility to safeguard people from avoidable harm and reported any concerns they observed. Risk assessments were in place to support people safely. Accidents, incidents, and safeguarding concerns were reported, investigated, and recorded appropriately. People felt their care workers had the skills and knowledge to support them. Staff completed a range of training courses to ensure their knowledge and skills stayed up to date with best practice. The service conducted thorough recruitment checks to ensure only suitable and qualified staff were employed to provide support at the service. People’s medicines were not always administered safely.

This service scored 38 (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 and their relatives told us they felt safe. A person told us, “Yes I feel safe with them and do think they do a good job.” Another person told us, "“I feel safe with the staff.”

Staff understood how to recognise abuse and to report any concerns to the registered manager. Staff told us they would be confident to escalate safeguarding concerns internally and to CQC.

There was a safeguarding and whistle blowing policy in place. The manager completed a safeguarding tracker, which included information regarding safeguarding referrals to the local authority. Records showed all safeguarding concerns were recorded and followed up. The registered provider notified us about certain changes, events and incidents that affect their service or the people who use it in line with regulatory requirements.

People and their relatives were confident that staff knew how to safely support them. A relative told us, ““They are very good when they are moving my [relative] and are very careful. They talk to my [relative] and tell them what they are doing. They do it in such a gentle way that it makes me smile.” A person told us, “[Staff] check what I want and if that’s ok and check if I am alright. They tell me to close your eyes when using shampoo and are careful to make sure my feet are dry.”

Staff understood risks posed to people and knew how they would reduce the risk of injury or harm. Staff told us they were made aware of any risks associated with people’s care by reading the care records and by talking with the registered manager and the people they supported. A staff member told us, “The care plans are in people’s homes, and they tell us what we need to do. How to keep people safe and what they like to do." Another staff member told us they had training in manual handling and explained what they would do if equipment wasn’t safe “[I] would not use it if not working and report as soon as possible.”

Assessments of risk to people were carried out. Moving and handling risk assessments highlighted any risks to the person or staff and how the risk should be reduced. Accidents and incidents were recorded with evidence to show that actions were taken to prevent incidents from reoccurring. The registered manager evaluated accidents to look for patterns or trends. The management team completed regular audits and care plans updated if new risks were identified.

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

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about timeliness of care calls. Some told us that timings were not consistent, and some said that staff do not stay for as long as they should. Comments included, “I would give them 10 out of 10”, “Now better as I have 2 good staff more regularly”, “They keep getting the times mixed up, get the hours wrong all the time. [I] don’t get a schedule, [staff] come when they want”. This was fed back to the provider to address. People and their relatives told us staff had the skills needed to support them safely. A person told us, “I think the staff seem like they have been trained and know what they are doing. I wouldn’t use them if I thought they were useless and didn’t know what they were doing.” Another person told us, “I think the staff are well trained. They have told me about the ‘Life in the UK sessions they have had, learning about our food and traditions which I think is good.”

Staff told us they had received a wide variety of training to be able to carry out their roles. This included monthly up-skilling training sessions. Staff received regular supervision. A staff member told us, “Supervision helps me to get better at what I am doing.” Staff completed a comprehensive induction to their role which included training and a period of shadowing an experienced staff member, before working alone in the community.

Systems and process were in place to make sure that all staff were recruited safely. Staff received regular training and supervision to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to undertake their duties.

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 received mixed feedback from people and relatives in relation to support provided with medication. A person told us, “No concerns with help they give me for medicines.” However, a person told us, “[I have] been given the wrong tablets”. Another person told us, “They are supposed to make sure I take medication, but they don’t. Supposed to tell me every visit.” We found no evidence that people had been harmed. The provider told us immediate actions were taken to ensure people’s safety when there was a medication error. An investigation process was followed, and actions taken to reduce the risk of recurrence. This included supervision with the staff member and refresher training followed by a competency assessment.

Staff received medicines training and had their competency assessed. Staff told us they understood their responsibilities in relation to medicine management and administration. Staff had had received training and were aware of processes to follow. A staff member told us, “I record what has been given and if someone refuses. If they do, I will talk to them and remind them why they should have it.”

Systems were in place for the administration, storage and record keeping of medicines. Medicines audits were carried out regularly.