Hopecare and Health 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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. Accidents and incidents were monitored, and action taken to learn lessons from these. The management team monitored and reviewed 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. Care records were digitilised and could easily be shared between services where appropriate. People had pre-admission assessments in place prior to using the service. Relatives told us they were involved in their loved one’s care. A relative said, “They (staff) have a friendly approach, they try to keep [name’s] spirits up. They keep [name] fully informed of what is going on, they involve them in their care planning.” Records evidenced staff liaised with health professionals where 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. Policies and procedures were in place, to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff understood their responsibilities to report concerns, and staff told us the management team were approachable, and they felt able to whistle-blow on poor practice. People and relatives told us staff made them feel safe. 1 Person said, “Staff just do things well, I always feel safe with them, they know what they are doing.” At the time of our assessment the service had no open safeguarding concerns.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In home care services, this is done through the court of protection. The service was not always working within the principles of the MCA, people had not always had their capacity assessed in a wide range of decisions about their care. Staff were trained in relation to the MCA. People's care records contained details about people's Lasting Power of Attorney's (LPA's). We spoke with the management team about this, who assured us more thorough capacity assessments would be undertaken.

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. Risks posed to people were assessed and mitigated, for example, where people were at risk of falls, choking or pressure wounds the appropriate risk assessments and associated care plans were in place. Daily records evidenced people received safe care and treatment, to manage risks posed to them.

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 received support in their own homes. Staff inductions and assessments included security checks of people's homes. Environmental risk assessments of people's homes and equipment were in place prior to staff providing support to people.

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 were recruited safely and all appropriate pre-employment checks were in place such as references and police record checks. New staff received inductions and shadowing opportunities. Staff were trained in a range of subjects to carry out their roles effectively, including dementia, catheter care and safeguarding training. Staff had their competencies assessed in a range of practical tasks, including moving and handling and catheter care. People told us staff always completed care calls and were mostly on time. A relative said, “There seem to be enough staff, [name] has two staff for each visit. We were asked if we minded having male carers, which we don’t. [Name] is ok with them and they are very good carers.” The management team completed call monitoring audits, to ensure people received their care for the allocated times.

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 relatives told us staff kept their homes clean and tidy and wore personal protective equipment to help keep them safe. 1 person told us, “The staff seem experienced, they wear gloves and aprons and put plastic covers over their shoes.” Staff had their infection control practices assessed and spot checked, to ensure they were adhering to the services policies and procedures.

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. Staff were trained and had their competencies assessed prior to administering medicines to people. People and relatives told us staff managed their medicines safely. A relative said, “The staff are very competent, one or two go over and beyond what is expected. The have a laugh and have built up a good relationship with [name]. They (staff) check that [name] takes their medication and record it on their apps and in a book if they refuse to take their prescribed medication.” Staff completed medication administration record's (MAR's), including where people had refused medicines, or were in hospital.