Ideal 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.

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.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded, with clear evidence of actions taken to reduce the risk of recurrence. Staff told us that when risk assessments no longer accurately reflected a person's current needs, the registered manager responded promptly by reviewing and updating them to ensure the safety and wellbeing of both the individual and staff members.

Staff also told us they had received relevant training that equipped them with the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe and effective care. This was supported by evidence within the staff training matrix, which demonstrated required training had been completed and maintained.

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.

Discussions with the registered manager and people’s care records identified other healthcare agencies were involved in people’s care. This ensured people received a seamless service when meeting their assessed needs.

Prior to people using the service, the registered manager carried out a needs assessment which involved the individual and their relative where appropriate. Information obtained during the assessment enabled the registered manager to develop a care plan and a risk assessment. We saw care plans and risk assessments were detailed and provided clear guidance for staff to meet the person’s needs. A relative told us within a couple of weeks their relative’s care needs had changed. The registered manager was prompt in adapting the care plan to reflect the person’s current needs.

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.

People told us they felt safe and well supported by staff. One person said, “The staff are so friendly, and I always feel safe with them.” Another person told us, “The staff are professional, they respect me, and I feel very safe with them.”

Staff confirmed they had completed safeguarding training, and the training records supported this. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding responsibilities, including recognising different forms of abuse and knowing the appropriate actions to take if concerns were identified.

The registered manager demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibility to protect people from the risk of abuse and was aware of when safeguarding concerns should be reported to the relevant agencies.

People using the service came from a range of diverse backgrounds. Care records contained detailed information about people’s cultural needs, religious beliefs, and personal preferences, enabling staff to provide person-centred care. People told us staff treated them with respect and consistently supported their individual preferences.

The registered manager told us no one using the service was subject to a Court of Protection order.

The registered manager informed us they had developed positive relationships with people and their relatives and, where appropriate, involved them in care planning and reviews to ensure care reflected people’s wishes and needs.

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.

Detailed risk assessments were in place to provide staff with clear guidance on how to promote people’s independence while ensuring their safety and wellbeing. One person told us, “Due to the support and care I receive, I can stay here (at home).” Another person said, “Staff most definitely help me to stay independent.”

Risk assessments covered a range of identified risks, including maintaining skin integrity and reducing the risk of falls. They contained detailed information about the measures required to manage these risks safely and specified any mobility aids needed to support people effectively.

Staff told us they had access to risk assessments and used them to help deliver safe and appropriate care. We found risk assessments were person-centred, reflected individual needs and preferences, and were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained accurate and relevant to people’s current circumstances.

The registered manager described initiatives in place to help reduce the risk of social isolation, including regular coffee mornings held at the office. These provided opportunities for people to socialise, maintain community connections, and access additional support when needed.

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

Environmental risk assessments and Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were in place. These provided staff with relevant information about potential hazards within people’s homes and the measures required to maintain their safety. The PEEPs also contained essential guidance on the appropriate actions to take and evacuation arrangements in the event of an emergency.

The registered manager ensured equipment used to support people, including lifting aids, were regularly serviced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer requirements. This helped to ensure equipment remained safe and fit for purpose, reducing the risk of harm to people and staff.

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.

Recruitment records demonstrated appropriate pre-employment checks were completed, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and obtaining references. Where a DBS check identified information of concern, the registered manager should ensure a risk assessment is completed and documented to demonstrate how risks to the individual and people using the service have been considered and managed.

Staff told us they completed an induction when they commenced employment, and records confirmed this. Staff also explained they worked alongside experienced colleagues as part of a shadowing process until they had developed the confidence and competence required to work independently.

Staff confirmed they received regular supervision, and staff records evidenced this. Ongoing supervision provided staff with opportunities to discuss their performance, training needs, and any concerns, helping to ensure they were appropriately supported in their role and able to provide effective care.

Training records showed staff had access to a comprehensive range of training relevant to their role. This helped ensure they had the knowledge and skills required to meet people’s assessed needs and deliver safe, effective care.

Staff told us regular spot checks were carried out by management, and records confirmed this. These checks helped monitor the quality of care provided and ensured staff continued to work in line with the service’s policies and procedures.

People we spoke with were highly complementary about the staff and the quality of care they received. They consistently described staff as caring, professional, and committed to providing support that met their needs.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

The registered manager had an Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) policy in place that was readily accessible to staff. The policy provided clear guidance on preventing and controlling the spread of infection and supported staff to follow safe working practices.

Staff told us they had completed IPC training and had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). People using the service also confirmed staff regularly used PPE when providing care and support.

Some people required assistance with meal preparation. Training records showed staff had completed food hygiene training, which helped ensure they understood safe food handling practices and reduced the risk of food contamination.

The registered manager informed us they were the designated IPC lead. This role enabled them to oversee IPC practices within the service, provide guidance and support to staff, and promote good standards of hygiene to help keep people safe.

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.

People could be confident they would receive support with their prescribed medicines from trained staff. Staff told us they had completed medication training, and training records confirmed this. We also saw regular medication competency assessments were undertaken to ensure staff maintained the skills and knowledge required to administer medicines safely.

We reviewed medication arrangements for people using the service and found one person had been prescribed medicines that were required to be administered at specific times. However, scheduled call times did not always align with the prescribed administration times. This created a risk that medicines may not be given as intended. The registered manager acknowledged this issue and informed us visit schedules would be reviewed to ensure time-sensitive medicines were administered at the correct times.

Where people had been prescribed medicines to be taken on an ‘as required’ (PRN) basis, we found clear guidance was in place. This included detailed information about the circumstances in which the medicines should be given, helping to ensure they were used safely and consistently.