Eeze Care London

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At our previous assessment, the provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment and employment of staff. At this assessment, enough improvement had been made, and the provider was no longer breaching these legal regulations.

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.

There were systems to learn from things that went wrong. Staff reported accidents and incidents. Managers investigated these. Managers encouraged staff to take part in reflective practice to discuss things that went wrong. They introduced improvements including updating staff training and changing support plans. When appropriate, managers asked people to reflect on any incidents they had been involved with. This helped to ensure their views were represented and they were supported to understand the situation from the perspective of others. Managers apologised to people and their families when things went wrong. Relatives told us they were asked for their views and contributed to learning.

Through reflective practice and learning, the provider had improved outcomes for people. People who had previously expressed their anxiety in a physical way had found other ways to communicate their needs, trusting staff to provide the help they needed.

The provider supported people to experience safe transitions. When people moved to the service, managers created bespoke training for the staff to understand about the person and to ensure staff knew how to meet their needs. They liaised with external professionals and carried out assessments, including observations and asking the person how they liked to be cared for. A manager explained, “We build trust with people to show them they are safe. We challenge existing restrictions and boundaries when these are not helping people.”

Staff supported people with transitions when they moved on to new homes. They supported people to learn the skills for this and to prepare for the change.

Staff created personalised information about people and how they communicated. This was shared with external professionals. For example, when people were admitted to hospital. Staff also supported people during hospital stays when needed, providing support, reassurance and advocating for them.

There were systems to safeguard people from abuse. There were procedures explaining how to report and respond to allegations of abuse. Staff completed training to understand these. Staff were able to explain what they would do if they suspected someone was being abused. People using the service and their relatives told us they were safely cared for.

Managers understood their responsibilities under safeguarding procedures. The provider worked with external professionals to investigate abuse and take action to help protect people from avoidable harm.

The provider assessed potential restrictive practices and discussed these with people and their representatives. People’s care and support was not subject to any formal legal restrictions. Some people made informal agreements with staff when their safety or mental health was at risk.

Staff assessed, monitored and managed risks to people to deliver safe and supportive care and treatment. People were supported to understand about positive risk taking. Staff discussed risks with them and helped plan for these. Risk assessments and management plans were clear, person-centred and regularly reviewed.

Some people expressed their anxiety and distress in ways which affected their safety. Staff worked with external professionals to ensure they understood best practice for managing these risks. They empowered people to reflect on their own wellbeing and to find ways to manage emotional distress. We observed staff supporting people well. They were quick to notice signs of distress and responded according to guidance. This ensured people felt supported safely. A relative told us, “[Person] is learning how to self-regulate [their emotions] and there is no doubt that this is something the staff have supported [them] to develop.”

Risk assessments included proactive strategies for avoiding situations which were known to trigger people’s anxiety.

Staff assessed risks within people’s home environments. They worked with landlords and other professionals to ensure these risks were mitigated. Staff undertook regular checks on fire safety and health and safety.

There were enough staff to care for people and keep them safe. The provider arranged staffing based on people’s assessed needs. People told us they had the right support when needed. Staffing was consistent. This meant people were cared for by staff who they knew well. A person told us, “We have good staff. They are nice people. They are helpful and kind.”

There were systems to check staff suitability during recruitment. The provider regularly assessed staff knowledge and competencies. Staff completed a wide range of training during their inductions and after this. Staff took part in regular supervision meetings and appraisals. This helped make sure they understood their roles and responsibilities.

There were systems to help prevent and control infection. Staff undertook training to understand about good infection prevention and control. Staff had access to personal protective equipment when needed. Staff supported people to maintain clean home environments and to understand about the risks of poor infection management.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. There were procedures for safe management of medicines. Staff undertook relevant training. Managers regularly assessed staff competencies and knowledge.

Staff worked with external professionals to ensure people’s medicines were reviewed and that these were right for them. They also helped ensure people were supported through changes and reduction of medicines.

People were supported to manage their medicines independently when they wanted this and it was assessed as safe for them to do so.

Medicines were stored safely. Staff kept accurate and up to date records relating to medicines.

Managers carried out audits of medicines management. There were systems to learn from medicines errors and when things went wrong.