Amron Home Help Ltd

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.

Systems were in place to record and report accidents and incidents. Staff were aware on how to report on these accurately. Staff confirmed how the manager and care staff reviewed all incidents to ensure lessons were learnt. Reflective practice was built into these processes. Systems indicated learning was embedded to prevent future incidents. The provider analysed any accidents or incidents had occurred and outlined remedial action taken.

The provider worked well with people, families, and health system partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. People’s safety was appropriately managed. Information following incidents were shared with external agencies to prevent their re-occurrence and any changes were put into practice. Healthcare practitioners commented, "I have found them to be responsive to advice given by our team and proactive in their prevention of pressure damage and skin damage.”

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 and their relatives told us they felt safe receiving support. Staff had received training and systems were in place to report any safeguarding concerns if they arose. Staff felt confident the registered manager would pass on any allegations to appropriate external agencies to ensure transparency. A safeguarding procedure and policy were in place and had been recently reviewed to ensure key information was retained.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risk assessments had been devised to keep people safe when receiving general support. These were reviewed and up to date. People had been involved in the process of devising risk assessments.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. While responsibility for peoples’ accommodation did not form part of the registration of the service, risk assessments for staff were available relating to each person’s home. These included assessments covering potential environmental hazards. Staff were provided with information on actions to take in people’s homes in the case of an emergency.

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 rotas were available evidencing appropriate staffing levels. Assessments determined the number of staff needed for each support call. Review of care plans evidenced increases in the number of staff required for individuals to reflect changing needs were implemented .People and their families commented staff were reliable and would contact them in advance if they anticipated they would be late for their support call. Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment was robust and included all necessary checks before staff could support vulnerable people. Staff received induction and supervision on a regular basis to observe practice and check their competency to perform their role. Staff received training they needed to meet peoples care needs and included all aspects of their daily lives. Staff told us there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns withappropriate agenciespromptly.Staffreceived training in both infection control and food hygiene. People and relatives confirmed staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing support.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Where applicable, support plans placed an emphasis on ensuring the independence of people managing their medicines. Support plans indicated preferences of how medicines were to be administered. Staff had received training in medication administration and had their competency to do this checked on a regular basis. This competency system had been verified by an external accreditation scheme. Records were maintained following administration of all medicines. These were found to be accurate, and the registered manager had the opportunity to review medication administration records to ensure accuracy. Information was available to staff in respect of the medication prescribed and the therapeutic effects of these. Care plans outlined clearly the responsibilities in respect of ordering medication, their storage and administration. Training materials incorporated the seven rights of medicines administration.