Goodwood Homecare

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 75 (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.

Systems and processes were in place to learn from incidents, to prevent re-occurrence and promote safety.

Staff told us they shared safety concerns with the registered manager or office staff. Staff recorded safety concerns in their daily notes which were then reviewed by office staff daily to ensure they were not missed and action was taken if needed. Where safety concerns were identified, these were shared amongst the wider staffing group to ensure all staff were aware. The registered manager was proactive in sharing lessons learnt and good practice to staff to further enhance the quality of care provided.

The provider was honest and transparent and where things went wrong communicated effectively and in a timely manner with relatives. One relative told us, “They always tell the family if anything happens. It's best practice from their point of view but it works from our point of view as well as we know what's going on.”

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.

People were supported by staff who were proactive in sharing healthcare concerns when needed to ensure they were kept safe. Staff supported people to have their needs met safely by working alongside and following guidance given by health professionals including occupational therapists, district nurses and GPs. Staff liaised with health professionals on behalf of relatives when needed to ensure people’s health needs were fully understood and people received the care they needed.

People had hospital passports in place outlining their health and communication needs to help staff understand their needs and facilitate smooth transitions when they were admitted to hospital or attending hospital appointments.

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 told us they felt safe and staff understood how to keep them safe in a way they were comfortable with. One person told us, “I always feel safe with the care they provide.”

Although no safeguarding referrals had been made in the last 12 months, we did not find any examples of when safeguarding concerns should have been raised with the local authority. A safeguarding policy was in place which staff were aware of and staff had completed safeguarding training. Staff told us if they had safeguarding concerns, they would share them with the registered manager and they were confident they would be addressed. The registered manager understood when to raise safeguarding concerns with the local authority.

Mental capacity assessments had been undertaken when needed and decisions were made in people’s best interests where they had been assessed as lacking capacity. Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and knew how to apply it when supporting people. One relative told us, “Staff understand dementia. All the carers seem to have a story of dementia knowledge. It’s really helpful as my relative doesn’t and won’t talk anymore. It’s great to have staff who understand that and understand my relative’s needs.”

Where people had lasting powers of attorney in place to give them the legal authority to make decisions on people’s behalf, the provider checked to ensure these had been registered with the Office of the Public Guardian and retained a copy on their files.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were confident the support they received was safe. Relatives were confident risks to people were managed safely. One relative told us, “The care is great and [relative’s name] is safe.”

Risk assessments were person centred and specific to people’s individual needs. Where people had risks related to their mobility, risk assessments were in place which staff followed to enable them to reduce risks associated with people’s mobility and support them safely. One person told us, “With my medical condition, my ability at standing up and moving around is limited. The carers are attentive to that and they understand the risk situation. They know how to use the equipment safely”.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were in place to guide staff how to support people to evacuate their homes in the event of an emergency. Environmental risk assessments were in place which considered the risks to both people and staff in people’s home environment and how these risks should be managed. For example, assessments included how to manage any potential hazards such as accessibility issues or use of emollient creams and also where the fuse box and fire alarms were located.

People were supported by staff who identified where their environments posed a risk and took immediate action to address this. For example, where someone had a defective door that may have posed a risk to them, staff attended the person's home to fix the door and reduce risk to the person. Staff were also proactive in communicating with relatives to ensure environmental risks were addressed when needed.

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.

People were overwhelmingly positive about the staff who supported them. People told us staff were well trained and knowledgeable regarding how to support them to meet their individual needs. Staff told us they were given regular opportunities to complete additional training to upskill them and their training wishes were discussed during supervision.

People were supported by staff who were recruited safely. Satisfactory Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were required before staff were permitted to work on their own. Where they commenced work prior to their current DBS check being received, clear risk assessments were followed to mitigate risk to people.

People told us when new staff supported them, they were accompanied by a staff member who knew them well so they could be introduced and learn more about how to support the person safely. One professional commended the provider’s induction and the positive impact this had on staff. They told us induction was much more detailed, rounded and person-centred than other providers and this showed in how the staff they recruited engaged with them.

People were supported by staff who had regular supervisions and appraisals. Staff told us they found these useful. One staff member told us, “We discuss things that could be improved, things that you want to do such as more training, any concerns re clients or other members of staff”.

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.

Staff had completed Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) training and the provider undertook IPC competency checks to ensure staff complied with current IPC guidance when supporting people.

Staff wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in line with current guidance to reduce risk of the spread of infection. One staff member told us, “I change my PPE in between each task.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were administered safely. Where needed, staff collected people’s medicines for them from the pharmacy. One relative told us, “[The provider] has an arrangement with a local pharmacy that put my relative’s medicines into a blister pack so the carers administer from there. There's a sheet with the medication they fill in when they're giving the medication. Medication has been administered as prescribed, no issues there.”

Medicine administration was recorded on electronic Medication Administration Records (MARs). Systems in place ensured staff were unable to log out of a care call until they had recorded on the MAR which meant medicine errors were infrequent. Where medicine errors did occur, this was investigated and staff were retrained if needed. If medicines were not administered, office staff received an immediate alert to enable them to check the reasons for non-administration and take action if needed.

Where people were prescribed medicine patches for their skin, the patches were rotated and staff documented the location of the patch. One staff member told us, “We can’t touch the patch before we apply it. We make sure it's adhered to their skin properly. We date it so we know when it's put on, we alternate the site when we put the next one on and we make sure the other patch has been removed”.

Protocols were in place to guide staff when to administer ‘when required’ medicines and the times and reasons for administration were documented. Staff ensured they left sufficient time between medicine administration. When there was an insufficient time gap to enable the safe administration of medicines, staff visited people again at a later time to ensure medicines were administered safely and in accordance with their guidance.

Medicines audits were undertaken to check the quality of medicine administration and medicines competency checks were undertaken to ensure staff members were administering medicines safely.