Sky Homecare Ltd

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 registered manager told us there had not been any complaints, safeguarding allegations, accidents or serious incidents in the past 12 months. The provider had policies in place covering these areas, including about learning from them. The registered manager had set up a system for recording and learning from incidents should they occur in the future.

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 registered manager carried out an assessment of people’s needs prior to the provision of care. This helped ensure there was a smooth transition into using the service. The registered manager told us, “I will go and do an assessment, to get to know their [people] needs.” People were involved in the assessment process, as were their relatives where appropriate. A person told us, “They came to me for that [an assessment of needs]. They said, ‘what do you need?’.” This meant the assessment reflected what was important to the person.
 

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.

The registered manager told us there had not been any safeguarding concerns in the past year, but they were aware of how to respond if there was a safeguarding allegation. Staff had undertaken training on safeguarding adults and understood their responsibility to report any allegations of abuse. A member of staff said, “You tell the manager [if you suspect abuse].” The provider had a safeguarding adults’ policy to help guide practice in this area.

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.

Risk assessments were in place for people. These included information about the risks they faced and how to mitigate those risks. They covered risks including medicines, moving and handling and skin integrity. Assessments were subject to review which meant they continued to reflect the risks people faced as they changed over time.

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 supported people who lived in their own homes. As such, the provider was not responsible for the maintenance of people’s property or possessions. Nevertheless, they had caried out environmental risk assessments to help ensure the environment was safe for staff to work in. Assessments covered areas such as fire, slip and trip hazards.

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.

There were enough staff to support people in a safe way. The registered manager told us punctuality was good and there had not been any missed calls. People confirmed this. A person said, “They are not late. They come on time.”

Employment checks were carried out on prospective staff to help ensure they were suitable to work in the care sector. These included employment references, proof of identification and criminal records checks.

Staff undertook training to support them in their role. This included training on dementia care, health and safety and person-centred care. Staff also completed the Care Certificate. This is a qualification specifically designed for staff working in the care sector. A member of staff said, “I’ve had a few trainings and they were good.”

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.

There were systems in place to help prevent the spread of infection. Staff were expected to wear personal protective equipment [PPE] when providing support with personal care. Staff confirmed that they did. A relative said, “They [staff] come in with full PPE.” The provider had a policy on infection prevention and control to help guide good practice in this area.

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.

The service supported 1 person to take their medicines. Staff had undertaken training about medicines administration which included an assessment of their competency to do so. People told us they were happy with the support they got to take their medicines, a relative said, “It all seems to be going well [support with medicines].”

Medicine administration records [MARs] were in place for people. For 2 medicines they said the medicine was to be taken 2 times a day, but staff had only signed for 1 administration each day. The registered manager told us the afternoon dose was given by the person’s family as care staff only attended the person once a day in the mornings. We recommend the MARs are clearer to reflect the actual administration that staff are responsible for. MARs did not contain any unexplained gaps.