Wright Homecare 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. 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 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 safety culture, based on openness and transparency.

Relatives knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint. Relatives told us they were aware of the complaint’s procedure. Staff supported people to understand how to raise concerns, using use of communication aids, visual prompts, and one-to-one support tailored to individuals’ needs.

The provider had effective systems in place to manage complaints and safety concerns. This included accessible, easy-read information to help people understand how to complain. Staff were supported to report and record incidents through clear processes.

Relatives told us they had no complaints or concerns but felt confident to raise any concerns in the future if need. One relative said, “I can’t imagine that will happen as I know the registered manager would address even the slightest concern if we had one.”

The registered manager promoted a culture of openness through an ‘open-door’ policy and regular team meetings, where accidents and incidents, and opportunities for improvement were discussed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

Staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people remained safe for example GPs and specialist practitioners to monitor people’s health conditions and respond to any changes in people’s support needs.

Where people had a diagnosis of a specific health condition, there were clear risk assessments in place to enable staff to support them safely.

The provider was responsive to people’s changing needs and made referrals appropriately to health care professionals when needed.

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

Relatives told us people were safe and well cared for in the home. One relative said, I wouldn’t want [relative’s name] to live anywhere else. “The staff are wonderful, they know [relative’s name] so well and the registered manager is so good, she keeps us up to date and involved with everything.”

Staff had access to local safeguarding procedures. They were confident in recognising and reporting safeguarding concerns appropriately. Staff protected people’s rights and prioritised their safety whilst working to enhance their quality of life.

Assessments of people’s mental capacity had been carried out, and best interest meetings were held to ensure decisions made were both appropriate and the least restrictive option. This included decisions relating to people’s living arrangements and personal care.

The provider acted promptly and appropriately when concerns arose. Where necessary, incidents and accidents were shared with the local authority safeguarding team and other relevant parties, such as relatives.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Risk assessments were in place and guided staff on how to support people in a safe way. The care provided to people was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Relatives felt their loved ones received safe care from the staff team. People were supported to spend their time doing things they enjoyed, and staff were consistently engaging with people in a positive and respectful manner.

The provider identified and managed potential risks to help ensure the service remained safe for people living there.

Relatives told us they had no concerns about the environment. Staff confirmed the provider had effective systems in place to manage risks and promote a culture of safety. The environment was tidy and free from unnecessary trip and slip hazards. Health and safety audits were in place and regularly carried out to ensure potential environmental risks to people were monitored and managed.

The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff available to support individuals as and when required.

Relatives also told us there were enough staff on duty to meet their loved ones needs. Staff felt confident and understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff confirmed they received regular supervision, which they found supportive and beneficial.

Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment records showed that all required pre-employment checks had been completed to ensure only suitable individuals were employed to work with people using the service.

The provider had systems in place to assess and manage the risk of infection.

Staff followed infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures in line with current guidance. During our visit, we observed staff carrying out cleaning tasks as needed, which helped maintain a clean and hygienic environment.

Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and demonstrated understanding of its correct use. Feedback from both staff and relatives confirmed there were no concerns about infection control practices.

The provider ensured that medicines were managed safely.

People were supported to receive their medicines as prescribed, including pain relief, which was offered in line with guidance from healthcare professionals. Medicines were stored securely, and appropriate audits were in place.

Medication Administration Records (MAR) were completed accurately and showed people received their medicines at the right times.

Staff understood how to administer medicines safely and had completed medicines training and competency assessments. Staff were aware of protocols for reporting and managing medication errors.