Calverton Supreme Home 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

Safe

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This service scored 63 (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 promoted a generally positive and open culture around safety; however, improvements were needed to ensure this was fully embedded in practice. Although staff listened to concerns about safety, they did not always investigate or report safety events consistently. As a result, opportunities for learning and improvement were missed.

There was no effective process in place to monitor, analyse, or review accidents and incidents. This meant the service could not reliably identify patterns, themes, or actions to prevent a reoccurrence. Complaint records did not clearly document outcomes, and there was no evidence that learning had been completed or shared. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that concerns were addressed effectively or that improvements were made to reduce future risk.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, where safety was generally managed and monitored. However, improvements were needed to ensure people consistently received safe and coordinated care. The service did not always ensure continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Care plans were not always fully completed in relation to people’s specific health conditions. For example, one person had epilepsy, but no care plan had been put in place. This meant accurate and essential information could not always be shared with other health professionals, particularly in an emergency. Although detailed pre-admission assessments were completed, including information about the support people needed this information was not always translated into personalised, up-to-date care plans. This meant important health needs were not consistently detailed for staff to follow, to provide safe care.

The provider had systems and processes in place to safeguard people from abuse and neglect. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to raise concerns, including reporting issues to external agencies such as the local authority safeguarding team. Staff had completed safeguarding training, and a policy was in place to support them in recognising different types of abuse. We found that staff reported safeguarding incidents to the local safeguarding team when appropriate. This meant staff were well‑informed and able to respond appropriately to safeguarding incidents.

The provider had not always worked with people to understand and manage risks in a holistic and person‑centred way. Whilst some risks had been identified, assessments were not always completed or clearly documented. In particular, risks associated with people’s specific health needs were not always assessed, and there was limited written guidance outlining how people wished these risks to be managed. For example, one person was diagnosed with epilepsy and did not have a risk assessment in place, there was no clear written guidance for staff outlining the appropriate action to take in the event of a seizure. This meant staff did not always have clear information to support people in responding safely to known health risks.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Risks associated with people’s individual environments were assessed before staff started supporting them, and regular environmental reviews were completed to provide staff with essential information on how to manage any risks that may be present within the home. People were supported to test their fire alarm every Monday. This meant risks were identified early, regularly reviewed, and effectively managed, helping to ensure people lived in a safe environment.

The provider had 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.

Staff had completed relevant training. This meant staff had knowledge and skills to safely support people. There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs safely. People confirmed they received their care calls on time and that staff stayed for the full duration of their visits. One person told us, “I am happy with the carers who always come on time and stay the duration.” Where staff were running late, people were informed. One person said, “I have 1 carer twice a day who is almost always on time. The office lets me know if they are going to be late.” This meant there was enough staff to meet people’s call times. Staff were supported through regular one-to-one supervision meetings, which provided opportunities to discuss performance, training needs, professional development and any concerns. This showed there were systems in place to support staff in their roles.

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. People told us staff wore personal protective equipment such as gloves or aprons. One person said, “They always wear PPE.” Staff had completed training and had a policy in place for infection prevent control. This meant the provider had effective systems in place to reduce the risk of infection and to help keep people safe.

Medicines were not always managed safely. Care plans did not always contain personalised information about how people preferred to take their medicines. Protocols for medicines administered as required (PRN) were not consistently detailed, and it was not always clear where prescribed topical creams should be applied. When medicine‑related incidents occurred, appropriate health professionals were not always contacted to assess the level of risk to people.

Medicine audits failed to identify when medicines were out of stock. For example, one person was prescribed a medication to be taken once a week, but this had not been administered for a whole month because the medicine was not available. No action had been taken to investigate why the person had been without their medication. This meant people were at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed, increasing the potential for harm.