Lydia Rose 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 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.

We found a positive approach to safety, where staff were observant and responded appropriately when people’s needs or risks changed. Care records showed that care plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated when needed, helping to keep people safe.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns with managers, these were listened to and acted on. People told us staff took care and did not rush support. One person told us they felt “very safe indeed” because staff checked things properly and paid close attention to their needs.

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.

People and families described care as “well organised and reliable”. They told us staff communicated clearly about visits and kept people informed if anything changed. Staff worked well with health professionals and reassessed people’s needs after hospital admissions.

Care records showed that care plans were updated when people’s needs changed. One family member told us that changes were dealt with “very quickly”, which reduced worry and helped people feel reassured.

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.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them. One person told us, “I feel safe with the staff who support me.” One family member said they would “feel comfortable raising any concerns and know they would be taken seriously.”

Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood how to recognise and report concerns. One family member described the service as “like one big family,” reflecting an open and supportive approach to keeping people safe.

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.

Records showed staff were guided not to make assumptions, for example continuing to offer support and choices even if people sometimes declined.

People and families told us staff encouraged independence while helping people to stay safe. One family member told us staff supported their relative “to be as independent as possible within a safe environment.” Care plans and risk assessments reflected this, detailing how risks such as mobility were managed to support independence and choice.

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 were supported safely in their own homes. People and families told us staff were careful when supporting mobility, and daily activities. Care records showed risks in the home had been identified and managed through environmental risk assessments. One person told us staff were “very concerned about my safety”, which showed staff were aware of potential risks associated with people’s care.

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.

Staff received appropriate training, induction and an ongoing assessment of their competency.

The registered manager described how staffing arrangements were built around relationships, with regular reviews of how well people and staff were matched. This helped ensure people were supported by carers who suited them and knew them well. One leader told us, “It’s important we get the right match — that makes all the difference for people.”

The registered manager explained that in the rare event additional cover was needed, management staff were able to step in and support people directly because they understood and knew people’s needs well. This helped maintain continuity of care while ensuring there was always a safe presence in the office to oversee staffing, scheduling and care delivery.

The service used an electronic call monitoring system to oversee visits in real time. The registered manager told us this system was reviewed daily to ensure visits were delivered as planned. Missed calls did not occur. Where a visit was running slightly late, staff informed both the person and the office so reassurance could be provided. A staff member told us, “If a visit is going to be late, the person is told — we don’t leave people wondering.”

This high level of oversight and communication helped ensure people received reliable care at the agreed times and felt confident and reassured about the support they received.

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 and families were confident that staff followed good hygiene practices. Families told us staff paid attention to personal care hygiene and food hygiene. Care records supported this approach.

Staff received IPC training and had sufficient PPE for personal care tasks.

A family member told us staff were “keen on hygiene, both personal care and food hygiene”. No concerns were raised about infection prevention and control.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were managed safely and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning their care, including when changes to medicines were required.

We reviewed medicines records and found these were accurate, clearly recorded and well maintained. Care plans detailed how medicines were to be supported, including when people may need medicines on an ‘as required’ basis.

The registered manager told us medicines audits were carried out to provide oversight and help ensure medicines were managed safely and consistently. Families told us staff acted promptly when medicines needed to be reviewed or adjusted. One family member told us medicines were “sorted out very quickly” when changes were needed.

Staff were trained and assessed as competent to administer medicines safely.