The Lowedges

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. At the time of our assessment there had been no recorded accidents or incidents. Improvements had been made since our last assessment and the provider implemented more robust reporting procedures, and monitoring, to ensure if an incident occurred this could be reviewed and any actions arising undertaken.

The provider made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Whilst we found pre-admission information was missing, since our last assessment a new care planning system had been implemented, this had improved how people’s needs and wishes were recorded. This meant information was now in place and could be easily shared with partner agencies, such as healthcare professionals as required.

The provider had policies and procedures in place, to enable staff to whistle-blow on poor practice. At the time of our assessment there had been no safeguarding incidents. Staff had received training about how to safeguard vulnerable adults.

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 homecare services, this is done through the court of protection. At the time of our assessment, the service was not supporting anyone who lacked capacity.

Risks posed to people were manged. People had risk assessments and associated care plans in place, which guided staff about how to safely support people. This included managing people’s skin integrity and risk of falls.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. People were supported in their own homes. Risk assessments were undertaken of people’s homes, to ensure staff could safely support people within their own environments. Staff had received training in how to support people to evacuate in the event of a fire.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. At our previous assessment, we identified gaps in pre-employment checks and staff recruitment records. Since then, the provider had obtained some outstanding information, including police record checks and references from staff’s most recent employers. However, some records, such as application forms and induction documentation could not be obtained retrospectively. The provider had strengthened its recruitment processes to ensure the required pre-employment checks were completed for new staff. However, there remained some gaps as these could not be obtained retrospectively, such as application forms and induction information. People were supported by enough, suitably trained staff. New systems were being implemented at the time of our assessment to ensure the leadership team could monitor care call times people received, to ensure people received their support on time, for their allocated times and received the support they required during care calls. Daily logs were monitored to ensure staff recorded information about what care people had received.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. The provider had policies and procedures in place to manage risks posed to people from infections. Staff had spot checks undertaken to ensure they were adhering to safe Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practices and staff had undertaken IPC training.

At the time of our assessment staff were not supporting any people with medicines administration. The provider had medicines policies and procedures in place, should this be required in the future, and staff had received medicines training.