Happy Family Care 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. At our previous assessment we found breaches of regulation relating to safe care and treatment and staffing. At this assessment we found they were no longer in breach of regulations.

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. There were clear systems in place for reporting, investigating and learning from incidents. We reviewed records relating to accidents and incidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns and found these had been investigated with appropriate follow up actions recorded which were then actioned. There were clear policies and procedures in place.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report and learn from safety concerns. One care worker commented as follows “It’s our role to make sure people are safe. When something goes wrong, we need to report this and make sure we fix whatever went wrong.”

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Staff meeting minutes included records of discussions about safety protocols and how to respond to incidents.

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. People’s care records included information from other professionals to ensure there was continuity of care. This included hospital discharge information or information from other professionals such as people’s GP where necessary.

The Registered Manager confirmed they worked with other partners to ensure there was continuity in the management of people’s care.

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’s relatives confirmed their family members were safe and treated well. One person told us “My [family members] are safe with them, which gives me a lot of peace of mind.”

Staff received safeguarding training on an annual basis and had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures. One care worker told us “If I thought somebody was being abused I would report this to the manager. I’ve never had any concerns about the people I’m caring for, but I still need to make sure people are safe.”

The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. There were clear safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures in place and the manager confirmed they were aware of when to report concerns.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. There were now clear risk assessments and care plans relating to individual areas of people’s health and safety. The provider now produced risk assessments that were personalised and included clear risk management guidelines for care staff.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Staff had a good understanding about the risks to people’s care and gave us examples of individual people they provided care to.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks to people’s environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. There were clear environmental risk assessments conducted that included areas of risk both inside and outside people’s properties. Where issues were identified, these were followed up and actions were taken to remedy these.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to identify and report any issues with either the environment or equipment people were using. They told us they were confident that any issues would be rectified. People’s relatives confirmed their family member’s environments were clear and clutter free.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff in place to support people. The provider carried out pre- employment checks on staff to ensure they were safe to work with people and provided a comprehensive induction, which included training and a period of shadowing.

The provider now ensured staff received ongoing support, supervision and development to ensure they remained able to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The provider now carried out quarterly supervisions and spot checks as well as annual appraisals and there was an ongoing system of training in place. Staff told us they found the support useful and were able to request further support if needed.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. There was a clear infection control policy and procedure in place.

Staff had received infection control training and had a good understanding about their responsibilities. They confirmed they were given the equipment they needed to maintain good infection control.

People’s relatives told us care workers maintained good levels of hygiene and used PPE as required.

The provider made sure that medicines were given safely and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. There were clear medicines care plans in place and these included details of what medicines people were required to take, when and why. Care staff recorded when people were administered their medicines on Medicine Administration Record Charts (MARs) and these were audited on a monthly basis.

Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. We saw medicines risk assessments were completed to determine what level of care people required with their medicines and these were repeated if people’s needs changed.

Staff received annual training in medicines administration and had their competencies checked. There was a clear medicines administration policy and procedure in place.