The Right Home Care Team Chesterfield

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 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. The provider implemented systems to promote a positive safety culture. Staff understood the procedure to record and report incidents; these were reviewed by the registered manager and learning shared with people and staff.

People knew how to make a complaint, however, no one we spoke with had done so.

The provider implemented an effective system to capture and learn from events which were identified early to prevent incidents. Themes were shared to promote learning and good practice and improved outcomes for people. For example, additional training and checks were introduced in response to learning from “near miss” events involving medication supplies.

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.

The provider implemented systems to promote smooth pathways when people moved into and on from the service. Assessments of need involved people and took into account information from others, which included health care professionals. The provider took responsibility to ensure referrals for specialist assessment and treatment were followed up. The provider shared relevant information with others appropriately. For example, the registered manager worked with the pharmacist to promote timely action to ensure people received the correct prescribed medicine using the most appropriate method for them following a review.

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.

People were safe and supported by staff who understood their responsibility to protect people from abuse and neglect. The provider implemented procedures to ensure staff were trained in safeguarding which was followed up during staff meetings. Staff got to know people well and understood the signs to look out for indicating potential abuse or neglect.

One relative told us, “I feel [my relative] is 100% safe with the care provided”.

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.

The provider implemented procedures to ensure risk assessments were completed with people to identify and manage any risks so individuals could do what they wanted to do as safely as possible. For example, people were supported to go swimming, attend work, social activities and horse riding. Staff knew people well and had access to up-to-date information. Care records contained guidance to support people safely.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider included an assessment of the person’s home environment during their initial assessment which was reviewed regularly. No issues had been identified by people or the staff supporting them.

The provider made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff available to meet people’s individual needs. However, staff had not always received effective supervision. The provider recruitment procedure did not consistently meet the requirements for safe recruitment.

During the assessment a review of staff recruitment records identified where an improvement could be made to the application form to ensure gaps in employment were identified in one document. The registered manager was receptive to this feedback and agreed to discuss with the provider to make changes to the form to ensure the document was more effective. We found no evidence of harm to people. The provider had ensured all required information was recorded as part of their recruitment process.

Sufficient qualified, skilled and experienced staff were deployed to meet the needs of people safely. One relative told us. “They [staff] seem well trained, if there is someone new, they shadow an experienced member of staff. They are given constant training updates”.

The provider monitored the data recorded related to people’s call times and duration and addressed any variances identified. People were happy with the punctuality and reliability of staff.

The provider had identified where improvements to staff supervision were required and undertook to improve the frequency of these. Records identified an increase in the number of supervision meetings held with staff on track with the service improvement plan. Staff told us they were comfortable to discuss any issues they might have with the management team and were confident they would be listened to.

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.

The provider implemented a system to ensure the risk of infection was managed. A planned infection control audit was completed every six months. Areas for improvement were identified and action plans developed to address these. Consecutive audit records identified where improvements had been made. The location had an identified infection control lead and an infection control champion. Additional training was available to support these roles.

People had no concerns relating to infection prevention and control. People told us staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) as required.

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 supported to manage their medicines safely as required. Appropriately trained and competent care staff worked with people and their relatives to ensure safe storage and administration of medicines. Care plans included individual guidance for staff to follow.

The provider implemented a digital system which supported continuous monitoring to ensure any administration concerns were flagged and addressed. The provider worked with the local pharmacy to ensure the accuracy of supply, including delivery, to promote best outcomes for people.

One relative told us, “[My relative’s] medication is kept in a locked box, they [staff] give it to them correctly and sign to record what is given”.