Weldon Homecare Services 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 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 positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. However, there was no formal process in place for lessons to be learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There were no routine reflective practice, formal team meetings, or active methods to gather feedback from staff or people using the service. Learning tended to be reactive, with managers responding when things went wrong rather than identifying themes proactively. People we spoke with did not raise complaints and generally felt satisfied. Most staff told us they were happy in their roles; however, a minority felt their views were not always heard or that actions could be taken more quickly. This limited the service’s ability to embed continuous learning and improvement.

The provider collected some feedback during reviews and through 1:1 discussion with staff. The last formal surveys were carried out in 2024. Following our assessment, the provider told us they planned to review their ways of working, taking into account feedback from staff. This would support more effective reflective learning, help evidence improvements made, and assist in identifying emerging risks before they escalated.

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.

We saw evidence of detailed assessments being undertaken prior to people receiving a care package to ensure the provider could fully meet their needs safely. Care plans were implemented quickly to ensure staff knew how to effectively support people.

The registered manager worked with others to solve problems and make improvements. The service communicated with other agencies to help ensure continuity of care. Regular contact was maintained with social workers, GPs, district nurses, and other professionals. The registered manager told us, “If they [people] go with paramedics, they will take the paper care plan with them or they will take screenshots with them. I have not managed to do a 'this is me' file for them yet but that is something I plan to do to go with them [to hospital].”

This meant if people needed to access other services, professionals had essential information immediately available which in the future would be streamlined to save time. It helped people communicate their story without having to repeat information and reduced the risk of inconsistent or unsafe care during transitions.

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.

We found staff had a good understanding of people’s personal risks and safeguarding needs.People were supported by staff who were vigilant, compassionate, and confident in their responsibilities. One staff member said, “I feel fully supported in following safeguarding procedures and reporting any concerns. Management is always responsive and takes concerns seriously.”

Issues were identified quickly and staff followed the organisation’s procedures correctly and informed the registered manager without delay. The registered manager demonstrated strong oversight of safeguarding. They assessed concerns promptly, took proportionate action based on the level of risk, and made timely referrals to the relevant external agencies, including the local authority safeguarding team, health professionals, and the Care Quality Commission.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.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 MCA.There were policies for the service for both the MCA and ‘deprivation of liberty in community settings.

This meant people experienced care that protected them from the risk of avoidable harm and abuse and protected their right to live safely.

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.

Any risks were identified and recorded with guidance for staff on how to manage those risks.Staff used this information to work collaboratively with people, helping them understand identified risks and agree on practical strategies to keep themselves and others safe. People were encouraged to express their views, preferences and concerns, and staff supported them to make informed decisions about how risks should be managed.

Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and identified potential risks to people’s safety. This included clear information about where people should park to help avoid complaints from others that may distress the person and helped keep good relationships with the community. Risk assessments included a Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) assessment for items including soaps and deodorant which explained how each product could be harmful if ingested and what to do in that situation.

Staff supported unplanned changes and continuously assessed risks. For example, where a person smoked in their own home. A staff member said, “[I] follow the care plan, make sure the ashtray is empty, make sure the person is aware of the risks. Before starting personal care [I] make sure the cigarette is out properly, open windows for fresh air.” This supportive approach enabled people to maintain their autonomy and do the things that mattered to them; while receiving the care they needed to keep them safe and well.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.As people were supported in their own homes, the management team had little influence over the environment; however, where possible, risks were detected and managed. They made sure equipment, and facilities supported the delivery of safe care. Care plans and assessments contained information which evidenced the safety of people’s home environment was considered and measures put in place to support people to ensure their environment remained safe and suitable. One staff member told us they do this by, “Making sure there are no trip hazards, making sure electrics and all the things we use are safe. Support to walk if needed like walking behind. When we do meal preparation, making sure we don't use anything out of date and food in the fridge is labelled with when it was opened. When I leave, I make sure the door is locked if needed and wanted. In general, I have a look around and see if anything is a danger.” This meant people were protected from the risk of harm in their home environment.

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.

Recruitment of staff was done safely and included relevant checks such as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks help providers assess the suitability of individuals for roles, particularly those involving vulnerable people.New staff completed an induction before starting work. Most staff told us they were well supported. Staff received regular supervision and completed training, to make sure they had the knowledge and skills to carry out their duties.

One professional said, “The visiting carers are always well presented and have a good understanding of the person they are visiting.”

The provider thoroughly assessed and managed the risk of infection. They always quickly detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and always shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.Staff were knowledgeable about infection prevention and control (IPC) and received training. Staff followed safe practices such as good hand hygiene, correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and appropriate cleaning routines. One staff member said, “I also have a pack of masks in my car so when I come down with a cold, I will wear it or if a customer is coming down with something to keep myself safe.” Staff were also aware of how to safely dispose of their used PPE.

People we spoke with did not have any concerns in relation to IPC. One relative said, “They wear shoe covers and I think that’s nice.” When asked if staff use PPE, people and their relatives all told us they did. One person said, “Yes and they change them regularly.”

The provider had implemented washable name badges and provided each staff member 2 sets of uniform, grey and black. The registered manager said, “During covid, when we were starting the business, I wanted people to be able to see that if you have a carer 5 days a week you want to be able to see that it is a clean, different uniform. It shows that your personal hygiene is to a standard.” The registered manager also told us they had spoken with the provider of their PPE and ordered additional stock to prevent shortages should crisis occur but would be rotating stock to ensure they used in date supplies.People received the right support from staff to maintain their personal hygiene and their homes were kept clean by staff. This meant staff took precautions to protect people from infection and disease.

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.People were given their medicines safely and in a timely manner. This was recorded on their medicines administration record (MAR). Staff were appropriately trained and aware of their responsibilities. The provider had up to date, clear and robust medicines policies and procedures in place. Staff were aware of how to give as required medicines and the checks they needed to make before giving this to someone. Staff competencies were assessed regularly to make sure they had the necessary skills. Managers and members of staff qualified to handle medicines regularly completed audits (checks) to make sure procedures were followed. The registered manager told us, “We do medication checks on all care workers. We make sure competency checks are all up to date. If there are any errors at all, the team leader will go out and make sure they [staff] are competent.” Medication audits also factored in peoples religious and cultural needs as some medicines may contain animal products such as gelatine which they would then make the person aware of. This meant people received their medicines safely and effectively, supporting their health and wellbeing.