Hennis Joe Limited

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 72 (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.

Staff recorded accidents and incidents and reviewed these to identify ways to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. The provider completed action plans and involved relevant professionals to consider lessons learned.

For example, one person had sustained an injury following a choking incident. The provider appropriately notified the local authority and the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team, who provided guidance on how to support the person with eating and drinking. This process helped to reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring again and supported people to remain as safe as possible while using the service.

The accidents and incidents policy clearly outlined the procedures for managing and responding to accidents and incidents.An accidents and incidents policy was in place, which clearly outlined the procedures for managing and responding to accidents and 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.

Systems to capture information as part of the pre-assessment process to determined if the service can support people safely. This included speaking with the referring agency, the person and their relatives.

We saw the pre-assessment had been completed and used to record key information about people’s support and care needs to determine the support required. This information was then used to create care plans based on people’s preferences and choices on the support they required.

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.

The registered manager worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that.

Relatives told us they felt people were safe when supported by staff and were confident that any concerns raised would be addressed. Staff had received safeguarding training, understood the signs of possible abuse, and knew the actions to take if they had concerns. Staff also had access to the service’s up-to-date safeguarding and whistleblowing policies.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Although the provider aimed to work with people to understand and manage risks, these were not always clearly documented. The provider considered risk to people as part of their assessment, which included personal care, moving and handling and health conditions. However, information about how staff should support people to reduce the risk of harm was not always comprehensively documented within care plans. This meant staff may not always have clear guidance on how to safely support people. For example, in relation to risks associated with moving and handling, the provider’s moving and handling policy stated that each person should have a detailed, person-centred moving and handling risk assessment in place; however, this was not always reflected in people’s care records.

In addition, there was limited information relating to the prevention of pressure sores. Care plans did not specify how often staff should reposition the person or how frequently creams should be applied to reduce the risk of skin damage. We found no evidence of harm and the provider updated all support plans and risk assessments including moving and handling, and pressure sores.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people safely, and feedback from staff suggested they knew people well and could describe how they managed risks in practice. A staff member said, “Yes, 2 staff need to support [person]. [Person] also requires sling, hoist and wheelchair. We take time and support [person] appropriately.”

The staff team was stable and consistent, which helped reduce the risk posed by gaps in documentation. All other risk assessments we reviewed were detailed, person-centred, and incorporated recommendations from health professionals. Risk assessments included relevant information, such as guidance on eating and drinking, which had been provided by the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team

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

The provider completed risk assessments in relation to the person’s home environment to indicate if there were any possible risks and how to reduce them. Environmental risk assessments included checks on any equipment used, any cleaning products used and any other possible risks.

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.

The registered manager told us they had 2 people using the service, and this meant it was easy to monitor staff punctuality. Staff received training relevant to their role and systems were in place to promote their ongoing learning and development, including supervision and checks of their competency.

There were robust and safe recruitment practices to make sure that all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. These provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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 an up-to-date infection prevention and control (IPC) policy in place and staff had received appropriate training and understood their responsibilities. Staff consistently told us they always had access to the necessary PPE to enable them to carry out their roles safely in line with the IPC policy.

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. Medicines Administration Records (MARs) showed that medicines had been administered as prescribed. For medicine to be administered when needed, protocols were in place to ensure the medicine was administered safely. Medicines audits were carried out to ensure people received their medicines safely. Staff had been trained in medicines management.

Staff told us they were confident in managing medicines. One staff said, “We manage their medicine, we record this on MAR sheet. Any concerns we will contact the registered manager.” The registered manager was able to demonstrate the process of ensuring medicines were managed safely such as training being delivered to staff and regular checks made on medicines administration and records.