Saxon Care Solutions (Royal Wootton Bassett)

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 service since it registered on 8 July 2021. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Incidents and accidents had been recorded on incidents forms. However, staff and management had not always recorded what actions had been taken in response to all incidents. Whilst the registered manager was able to share verbally actions taken it was not recorded. This meant it was not clear if all lessons learned had been identified. We also found 1 incident that had not been reported to the registered manager.

Lessons learned had been shared with staff and there was evidence of learning across all the providers services. The registered manager created a culture of learning by encouraging staff to reflect on what had happened and what they could do differently to prevent incidents.

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.

The registered manager told us they tried to make sure care packages were safe for both people and staff, so they provided more time for visits when people were being discharged from hospital. Staff reviewed people’s care and made sure there was accurate guidance recorded. In addition, time was taken to review people’s medicines when moving between services.

The registered manager said, “If the person is unwell, the priority is the person. We stay with the person until paramedics arrive and make sure people are safely transported.” On 1 occasion staff had stayed with a person overnight until the ambulance arrived to transport them to hospital.

People had care records in their homes which could be shared with healthcare professionals.

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.

Staff had received safeguarding training and were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. Staff said they would report safeguarding concerns immediately. The registered manager told us, “We did have some learning last year around safeguarding, reporting was not as accurate as it could be. We did a new training session for the staff on how to report and record. We embedded this into our induction and included this in supervisions.”

The registered manager was aware of how to share concerns with the local authority and worked in partnership with them to resolve concerns.

People told us they felt safe using this service and they trusted staff. Comments included, “Feel very safe, [person] trusts the staff fully” and “[Person] feels safe, fully trusts the staff and is very happy to see the same 2 carers visit.” One relative said, “[Person] was definitely kept safe. You name it and the carers did it, [person] did feel safe, they enjoyed their visits.”

Risks to people had been assessed, reviewed and managed to keep people safe from avoidable harm. However, we found some risk management plans needed more details to give staff a better understanding of risk. For example, for 1 person who had a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) did not have full guidance on who was involved in managing the PEG and what their roles were. For 1 person who had started experiencing seizures, there was not personalised details on seizure management. There was guidance on what to do in the event of a seizure. We shared this feedback with the registered manager who told us they would update the records to add further guidance.

For other people we found risk management plans contained details on the support to be provided. Staff had full access to this guidance on an electronic system. Office staff could easily update this to make sure details were current.

If people had specific risks such as allergies this information was recorded and shared with staff.

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

People’s care records showed environment risk assessments had been completed. These assessments included a full review of all potential hazards present in people’s homes. Where any equipment was being used, staff had training on how to use it and office staff knew who to contact if there were any faults.

People and relatives were very satisfied with how staff used equipment in the environment. One relative told us what equipment was being used and said, “All handled safely by the carers, who are all friendly and polite.”

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.

Safe recruitment procedures ensured all staff had the required pre-employment checks before starting work. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. A DBS check provided information about any convictions and cautions held by police. This information helped providers make safe recruitment decisions.

New staff had a thorough induction which helped them understand the role. Further training was provided as needed. Staff had regular supervisions and opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge.

People told us they felt staff were well trained and competent. There were enough staff available to make sure people had their visit. If there was any short notice sickness there was a team of office staff who made sure people were safe and cared for.

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.

The provider had infection prevention and control policies and made sure staff were trained. Supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) were available for staff. Management carried out unannounced spot checks to make sure staff were using PPE appropriately and safely.

People told us staff safely used PPE regularly when delivering care. Comments included, “Appropriate PPE is always worn” and “We see that PPE is always worn correctly.”

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 managed safely. People’s levels of support needed with medicines were clearly recorded. People and relatives told us they were happy with the support provided by staff to help them have their medicines as prescribed. One person said, “They [staff] watch me take them [medicines], they check they are the right ones and document it on their [systems].” Staff signed people’s medicines administration records to make sure it was clear what medicines people had been given and when.

The registered manager told us they kept information on common medicines people used and the possible side effects. This information was shared with staff to help build their knowledge base. The registered manager said, “We have done a lot of education with staff this way.” Staff had medicines training and an assessment of their competence. This was refreshed annually.

Any medicines errors were investigated so that potential causes could be identified. The registered manager told us if errors occurred, the staff involved completed training again and had further assessments of their competence.