Albury Care 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There was a culture of learning at the service. Incidents and accidents were recorded and analysed to identify any patterns or trends. Staff said they had opportunities in staff meetings to discuss incidents and learn from each other. The registered manager told us, “At staff meetings we talk together and learn from things. We do through incidents and we try and find the trend if there is one.”

The registered manager monitored safety events happening nationally. They told us events or incidents happening in all care services were used as learning. Information was shared with staff to raise awareness and help apply learning to how care was delivered.

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 had systems which enabled staff to share information when people were moving between services. If people were going to hospital staff shared as much information as possible with medical professionals. If people had live-in care the staff member went with the person to hospital which helped to make sure correct information was shared so any care records could be updated.

The registered manager told us if people were in hospital for a long period of time, leaders would re-assess people’s needs and update care plans. If people needed new equipment, this was sourced before people were discharged which helped to keep people safe.

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 and relatives said people were safe using this service. One relative said, “[Person] is in safe hands, they are always on time.”

Staff had regular training on safeguarding and understood how to report any concerns. They were confident anything raised with office staff would be managed safely and in a timely way. The registered manager told us they regularly reminded staff to report everything. They said, “I tell the staff to report everything, they know they are my eyes and ears and I rely on them. They are very good and I am confident they will report.”

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.

Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and where needed risk management plans were recorded. These were reviewed regularly and updated if people’s needs changed. Guidance available for staff was detailed and covered a range of risks and how to provide safe support. For example, if people needed help to mobilise there was detailed guidance for staff to follow. This included step by step information on how to use equipment such as hoists and how to provide reassurance to people who may be anxious.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Leaders completed assessments of the environment in people’s homes prior to care packages starting. This meant hazards identified could be assessed with guidance recorded to support staff to know what to do. For example, if people’s homes were in an area with reduced external lighting. Staff were provided with torches to help them safely access and leave people’s properties.

Where needed staff liaised with occupational therapists and physiotherapists to get training and guidance on using equipment safely.

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.

Pre-employment checks on staff had been completed. This included obtaining references from previous employers and getting a Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS). New staff had an induction when they started work and were provided with refresher training as needed.

People and relatives said the staff were well trained. One relative said, “We are very happy with the carers. They are professional, trained well and pleasant people, I trust them.” New staff had inductions and regular ongoing training to refresh their knowledge and skills. Staff attended meetings and had supervision. This enabled staff to discuss their development needs and request any other training needed. The registered manager said they aimed for staff to have supervision every 3 months or more if needed. Staff feedback about the training and support provided was positive. One member of staff said, “The training is relevant to my role and helps me provide safe and effective care. I also receive regular supervision sessions which I find helpful and supportive.”

The service organised rotas so staff were not travelling long distances in between visits. Leaders had good local knowledge so were aware of events or road works that impacted on travelling. There was a team of office staff who were on hand to cover visits if needed.

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.

Staff had personal protective equipment (PPE) to use in people’s homes. Regular checks were completed on staff to make sure they were following good infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines. Staff were trained on IPC and had access to guidance if needed on managing infections.

People told us staff wore appropriate PPE when delivering care. One person said, “They [staff] are well turned out and wear gloves and plastic aprons.”

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.

Leaders assessed people’s needs and recorded the levels of support required with medicines. If people had medicines that needed to be given at specific times this was recorded in people’s care records. People had their medicines as prescribed and did not share any concerns about how their medicines were managed. One person said, “They [staff] are very proactive in handling medication and getting it right.”

Medicines administration records demonstrated people’s medicines were consistently administered. We found no gaps in recording.