WEF Care Also known as Chesterfield Respectful 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

The service was safe and people were protected avoidable harm.

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 had access to a complaint policy and felt confident to raise concerns and that they will be treated with compassion and understanding. A few people raised concerns with the service and were happy with how the complaints were handled by the provider. One person said, "I complained to the office and it was resolved quickly and promptly". Another person said, "I made a complaint and it was resolved quickly and to my satisfaction".

Leaders told us they completed governance report once a month to review any risks and areas of improvement. They explained how safety incidents were recorded, analysed and reported. Leaders said they actively sought feedback from staff and people, for example through surveys. They showed us how feedback was analysed and what actions were taken as a result. Care staff told us that lessons were learnt from feedback and from when things go wrong and that the information and outcomes were passed down to staff.

The provider had systems and processes to promote culture of safety, openness and honesty. Safety concerns such as safeguarding incidents, other incidents and accidents were recorded, investigated and reported appropriately. Risks were dealt with, and outcomes of investigations were shared with all relevant parties. The provider had policies and procedures to encourage and support staff and people to raise concerns. For example, whistleblowing policy for staff and complaints policy for people. We saw examples of how the provider acted on staff's and people’s feedback to improve practise, for example, when concerns were raised around GDPR or communication between people. A recent people survey documented positive changes in people's satisfaction levels as a result of recently implemented changes.

People told us what they would do and who they would contact if they were concerned about any risks or if their health condition was worsening. People told us staff were aware when their needs change. One person said, "They [staff] are on top of this [changing needs] and in particular the medication".

Leaders were confident in their systems of care, where safety of people was managed and monitored. This included safe admission pathway, appropriate risk assessments and effective partnership working with other health professionals. Care staff told us risks to people health and well-being were well documented, for example in people’s care plans and risk assessments.

Feedback from partner agencies raised no concerns about safety of people who use the service.

The provider had clear systems and processes to ensure safe admissions to the service and made additional referrals when required. We saw examples of how the service effectively worked with other health and social care professionals to achieve better outcomes for people. For example referral to physiotherapy to improve person’s mobility. Individual risks to people’s health and well-being were identified and documented in people’s care plans.

People told us they felt safe and supported by staff and knew how to raise any safety concerns. People told us the staff provided them with contact details of who they can contact if they did not feel safe.

Leaders gave us examples of how they dealt with safeguarding incidents. They showed us evidence of how safeguarding was frequently discussed in team meetings and support sessions with staff. Care staff confirmed they received safeguarding training and knew how to apply it in practise. Staff had good understanding of what abuse and neglect is and how to report it.

The provider had effective systems and processes to make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. There was a safeguarding policy and all staff completed safeguarding training and refreshed it annually. There were clear procedures about how to deal with safeguarding concerns. We saw examples of how safeguarding concerns were identified, investigated and reported appropriately. The provider had systems in place to ensure that immediate actions were taken when abuse or neglect was suspected and worked collaboratively with partner agencies such as the Local Authority and CQC to ensure people were safe. There were systems in place to support people who lacked mental capacity to make decisions. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place for people who needed it.

People told us they felt supported to manage risks to their health and well being. They could speak to staff and ask for support if they felt their health was deteriorating. People told us staff were aware when their needs changed, for example if there was a change to their medication.

Leaders told us they involved people and their relatives in assessing risks. They told us that risks were recorded and reviewed regularly. Care staff told us that risks to people were clearly recorded in people’s care plans and risks assessments and were easy for staff to understand. Care staff told us they felt confident supporting people with communicating their needs, including distress. Leaders said there was a restraint policy to ensure that restraint is only ever used as last resort. Staff were aware of the restraint policy in place and they confirmed they have never used restraint.

The provider has systems in place, such a risk assessment to ensure that risks to people were recorded. We saw that people and their representatives were involved in assessing risks. The risk assessments were reviewed regularly. Risk assessments about people’s care were completed. Some aspects of the risk assessments required personalising; we shared this feedback with the provider who immediately made the required changes.

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 that staff were well trained and knew what they were doing. Comments included, "I have no concerns they [staff] all seem well-trained and seem to know what they are doing"; "They [staff] are very nice and know what they are doing". People said that staff mainly attended to them on time, as per their contracts and if staff were late it did not have significant impact on the care and support. Feedback included, "They [staff] have never been exceptionally late"; "They [staff] more or less arrive on time".

Leaders told us about the changes they recently made to support staff, reduce the amount of sickness absence and increase staff availability to complete care calls. Care staff told us the induction process was thorough and they felt prepared and supported to carry out their role. Most staff told us that ongoing training was of good quality, however some preferred more face to face (instead of online) training. Care staff told us they were usually able to complete their care calls on time, however some felt they did not have enough time to travel between the appointments which impacted on them being slightly ate. The newly appointed manager was working towards fully addressing the care staff feedback.

The provider’s recruitment processes were safe and robust. Staff had all necessary checks completed prior to commencing employment at WEF care, for example DBS and references. There was a recruitment officer who, alongside leaders was responsible for ensuring safe recruitment. Staff completed induction prior to commencing employment, this included shadowing more experienced members of staff. New starters were supported by mentors to ensure they felt confident and competent. All staff were expected to complete Care Certificate within first 3 months of employment to ensure consistent level of qualifications. Staff performance was managed through regular support sessions, spot checks and appraisals.

People said staff were always wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). They shared no concerns about staff infection prevention and control practise. People who required support with food preparation told us staff were conscious of good food hygiene practise.

Leaders told us that they ensured staff were familiar with the relevant IPC policies and have sufficient PPE and staff confirmed that. Staff were aware how to protect people and reduce the risk of infection. Staff confirmed they received IPC and food hygiene training.

The provider had an Infection Prevention Control (IPC) policy in place and training matrix evidenced that all staff completed IPC and food hygiene training. The provider ensured there was sufficient stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) available for staff.

People raised no concerns about the way staff supported them with medicines. They told us staff were aware if there were any changes to the prescribed medication.

Leaders told us that they ensured that all staff received medication training as part of their induction and it was refreshed annually. Staff told us they felt competent when administering medication and knew what to do if a person refuse to take their medication or if they made a medication error. Leader told us they completed monthly audits of medication and additionally, the manager completed a regular branch audit to ensure compliance with relevant legislation and current national guidance.

The provider had systems in place to ensure that people were safely supported with medicines. Medication policy was in place. People had medication care plans and risk assessments that documented what support was required. People who did not have capacity to make decisions around the medication had their needs assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We reviewed medication administration sheets (MARs) which evidenced that people received their medication as prescribed. When medication errors occurred, they were addressed and reported promptly. Provider had an effective governance system in place to ensure that medication were administered safely. Training matrix evidenced that all staff received medication training.