Community Clinical Care Limited

Feedback from parents was largely positive, with people telling us their children were “supported safely” and describing care as “good” and “very professional”, with some stating it was the “best service ever used.”Parents told us they felt their children were safely supported. They confirmed they were involved in planning and reviewing care.

Staff were safely recruited and received regular supervision from a manager. They were trained in mandatory and specialist areas and worked with clear care plans and risk assessments, which were detailed and regularly reviewed. Systems were in place to manage risks, incidents and safeguarding, with no current safeguarding concerns identified. Medicines management was generally good. However, we found gaps in one child’s medicines record, and this was immediately addressed during our inspection. Infection prevention and control arrangements ensured families had access to appropriate personal protective equipment.

Care was person-centred, with plans reflecting children’s needs, preferences and communication styles. Detailed guidance was provided for staff on ensuring children’s needs were effectively met. Guidance from specialist professionals was included in the care plans. The service worked collaboratively with health professionals and commissioners to ensure continuity of care, particularly during hospital admissions and transitions home.

Children’s parents told us staff were kind, caring and respectful of privacy and dignity. They confirmed they received continuity of care from regular staff who knew their children well. A couple of family members told us they had experienced difficulties when unknown staff covered unplanned absence from their children’s regular care teams. However, they recognised the service made strenuous efforts to ensure suitable arrangements were in place and keep parents informed. Staff members spoke kindly and positively about the children they supported and described the importance of developing positive relationships with children and their families.

There were systems in place to respond to concerns and complaints, and most relatives felt communication was good and issues were addressed promptly and to their satisfaction. Leaders had recognised concerns about staff sleeping during night shifts and introduced a monitoring system for night staff to reduce risks.

Auditing and governance arrangements were generally effective. Although we found gaps in a medicines administration, the reasons for this were known to senior staff, and actions were taken to reduce the risk of this recurring.

Overall, the service demonstrated a positive and learning culture, with supportive and approachable leadership. Staff felt well supported and able to raise concerns. The provider showed a commitment to continuous improvement through strengthening oversight systems and introducing new monitoring processes.