Privilege 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 – 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 meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Due to the low number of people using the service there had not been any recent safeguarding incidents. Processes were in place to protect people from abuse and poor care. The provider had responsibility for overseeing these processes, but had not completed safeguarding training. This risked they may not have had the skills and knowledge to identity and report abuse correctly. The provider told us they would arrange to attend manager level safeguarding training as an immediate priority.

The provider’s safeguarding policy had some outdated information which was corrected as part of this assessment. The provider assured us they would take steps to robustly review their safeguarding policy annually.

Staff received training in safeguarding and were able to describe how they would identify and report any concerns. People told us they felt their relatives were safe when carers visited. One person told us, “We know that our relative is happy and safe, for example when they come in [they] recognise them and look happy to see them.” Another person told us, “I do feel that my relative is safe.”

The provider had systems in place to assess and manage risks and involved people in understanding the best way to mitigate these risks. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and how to safely manage individual risks. However, the actions staff took were not always reflected within care records. For example, 1 person’s records did not contain detailed information about the specialised equipment the person used to reduce the risk of pressure sores and to help them to move, and they did not have a bespoke choking risk assessment. The provider took action to address this during our assessment and assured us they would implement a more consistent approach to ensure care plans and risk assessments were always comprehensive.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff’s working pattern was not conducive to providing consistently safe high quality care and did not provide flexibility to respond to unexpected absences. Staff worked 7 days a week and 1 staff member worked with less than a 9-hour break between shifts. Staff told us they were happy with their shift pattern as they only worked a few hours a day. The Working Time Regulations 1998recommends all staff are entitled to 1 day off every week and at least 11 consecutive hours of rest in each 24-hour period. The provider told us they would review staff rotas as an immediate priority.

Staff completed training in key topics such as moving and handling, medicines management and safeguarding. Annual training updates were booked for all staff for the month following our inspection.

People had received care from the same staff team for many years. There had been no new staff recruited since our last inspection. Existing staff were subject to regular checks to ensure they continued to be safe to work with vulnerable people.

People told us staff were punctual and provided good care. One relative told us, “I would recommend them because they are nice kind carers and always on time.” Another relative said, “I never feel anything's being rushed and they've never missed a call. If they are ever running late, they will always give us a ring to let us know. I do think they're well trained, and I can see that they know what they're doing.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.