Academy Homecare Services

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 good. At this assessment the rating is requires improvement.

This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment.
 

This service scored 59 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The oversight and management of safety events was not always effective. Where accident and incidents had occurred and documented, these did not always detail post-incident information, such as the actions taken by staff and whether external healthcare professionals had been involved. Safety events had also not always been reviewed and analysed by the provider for understanding and learning. This meant people were at risk of accidents and incidents not being appropriately managed. Following feedback, the provider acknowledged some accidents and incidents had occurred in which people experienced harm which they had not been aware of and acknowledged the need for improvement in this area.

There was also a lack of an effective learning culture in other areas, such as a lack of regular staff meetings by the provider. This meant staff did not always have an opportunity to share and learn information to improve service delivery.

The provider did not always ensure safe systems of care. They did not always manage or monitor people’s safety.

The provider did not have effective systems of monitoring and managing safety in the service. For example, in addition to concerns regarding the management of safety events - concerns regarding people’s care plans, safeguarding, an awareness of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and governance arrangements had not been identified or effectively acted upon to ensure people were consistently safe. This meant people were exposed to avoidable risk.

People and relatives told us they had been involved and had no concerns regarding the transition process for people before they moved to the service. The provider described this process, which included obtaining information regarding people’s care and support needs so this information could be reflected in their care records.
 

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They did not always concentrate on protecting their right to live in safety, free from avoidable harm and neglect. The provider did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider failed to effectively monitor, manage and report safety incidents that had occurred which had affected people’s health, safety and welfare. While accident and incident records showed people had been exposed to risk of harm, these incidents had not always come to the attention of and reviewed by leaders, which could have supported understanding and learning. This meant there was an increased risk of recurrence of incidents, which exposed people to avoidable harm.

Safeguarding events were not always reported to the local authority or CQC. The provider is legally required to report certain events to both safeguarding authorities and the CQC. Failure to ensure safeguarding incidents were reported demonstrated ineffective safeguarding processes which increased the risk of a recurrence of incidents.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where the provider believed people lacked capacity to be able to consent to their care arrangements, mental capacity assessments and, where this would have been applicable, best interest decisions, had not been carried out. This meant people were at risk of their rights under the MCA not being respected.

There was a safeguarding policy in place, records showed staff had completed safeguarding training, and people and relatives told us they felt their relatives were receiving safe care.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks.

Care plans did not always provide information for staff which accurately reflected people’s needs and risks. For example, care plans did not always provide information which adequately detailed people’s physical health, mobility and safety needs. This meant people were exposed to the risk of harm by staff not having accurate information to support them safely.

There was evidence of engagement with healthcare professionals. However, where people experienced harm, there were missed opportunities which could have led to further professional involvement and opportunities for greater understanding and managing of people’s risks.

Staff demonstrated a good awareness of the risks associated with people and how to support them. People and relatives told us staff understood people’s risks, with 1 relative saying, “They appreciate that [my relation] suffers from the cold badly, so they always make sure that she's got plenty of blankets and towels etc around them.”
 

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

Staff received health and safety training and demonstrated a good awareness of how to ensure people’s home environments, including mobility equipment, were maintained to mitigate potential risks.

The provider completed observational checks of people’s home environments as part of the quality assurance checks they completed of staff. No concerns were identified from these checks.
 

The provider did not always make sure recruitment processes were robust and staff received appropriate support and development.

The provider failed to ensure they had obtained adequate recruitment information for all staff. Staff application forms did not always contain staff member’s full employment history since leaving school and, where this was the case, the reasons for this. This meant people were at increased risk of being supported by staff whose employment history could not be assured.

Staff did not receive regular team meetings from the provider. This meant opportunities for the provider to provide staff with consistent support and development were missed. However, staff received inductions and supervisions with leaders, and the provider and staff told us there is frequent team communication on a staff team group chat. People and relatives were satisfied staff demonstrated the skills they needed to provide safe care.
 

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

The service had an IPC policy which set out the provider’s IPC expectations. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control (IPC). Supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) were observed in the office, which staff told us they had access to when they needed it.

People and relatives said staff used PPE when providing care, with 1 person saying, “They always wear aprons and gloves as they help me, and they wash their hands. I also see them change their gloves between emptying the commode and then going into the kitchen.”
 

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

A medicines policy was in place and staff received training in safe medicines management. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good awareness of medicines processes and people’s individual medicine needs. People and relatives told us they were happy with the medicines support they received from staff.

The provider completed medicines audits of people’s medicines arrangements.