Home Instead Mansfield Also known as Syson 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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 78 (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 developed a strong, proactive, and positive culture of safety that was underpinned by openness, transparency, and honesty. Staff were encouraged to raise concerns, report incidents, and share ideas for improvement without fear of blame. Leaders actively listened to feedback from staff and viewed challenge as a valuable opportunity to drive improvement, strengthen practice, and enhance outcomes for people using the service.

Safety events and concerns were thoroughly investigated, with a clear focus on understanding what had happened, identified learning, and prevented reoccurrence. Lessons learned were routinely shared with staff through meetings, supervision, training, and service updates, ensuring learning was embedded across the organisation. Staff told us they felt valued when identifying issues and were recognised for their contributions to improving the service. This created a culture where staff were empowered to speak up, reflect on practice, and continually seek ways to improve care.

Leaders demonstrated a commitment to continuous learning and improvement, celebrating good practice and recognising achievements alongside learning from incidents and feedback. Improvements were monitored to ensure actions had been effective and resulted in positive changes. As a result, the service fostered an exceptional learning culture where openness, reflection, and innovation were actively encouraged, enabling staff to deliver safer, more effective, and increasingly person-centred care.

The provider worked effectively with people, their relatives, healthcare professionals, and community partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. Safety was monitored through ongoing communication, regular reviews, and collaborative working, helping to ensure people's needs continued to be met as their circumstances changed. The provider placed a strong emphasis on continuity of care, ensuring important information was shared appropriately and that people experienced coordinated support when moving between services or accessing additional sources of support.

The management team was proactive in identifying opportunities that could enhance people's wellbeing, independence, and social inclusion. They worked closely with people to explore community resources and other services that could help them achieve their personal goals. For example, managers supported people to access new services, such as day centres and community groups, by discussing options with them, they assessed any potential risks, and implemented measures to support a safe transition.

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 can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. Where people receive support in their own homes, this can be done through The Court of Protection which is defined as part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed deprivation of liberty within the service. We found that the principles of the MCA were being met and issues were identified quickly. Staff followed the organisation’s procedures correctly and informed the Registered Manager without delay. The Registered Manager demonstrated strong oversight of safeguarding. They assessed concerns promptly, took proportionate action based on level of risk, and made timely referrals to the relevant external agencies, including the local authority safeguarding team, health professionals, and the Care Quality Commission. Lessons learned were shared with staff, which strengthened the service’s safeguarding culture.

Mental capacity assessments were completed where appropriate to help determine the level of support people required to make decisions about their care and treatment. These assessments were completed in partnership with people and, where appropriate, their relatives, and were regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to accurately reflect people's abilities and needs.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks in a holistic way, which ensured support promoted both safety and quality of life. Rather than focusing solely on reducing risk, staff worked collaboratively with people, their relatives, and relevant professionals to identify what was important to them and develop support plans which enabled them to continue doing the things that mattered most.

Risk assessments were personalised and balanced people's safety with their rights, choices, and independence. For example, where people were at risk of falls or had reduced mobility, staff supported and encouraged people to help them move safely around their home and access the community, rather than unnecessarily restricting their activities. Where people wished to remain independent with tasks such as preparing meals, managing their home, or attending social activities, staff identified ways to reduce risks while maintaining choice and control.

The provider effectively identified, assessed, and managed potential risks within people's home environments to support the delivery of safe care. Systems were in place to ensure equipment, facilities, and technology remained safe and suitable for use. An audit tracker was used to monitor servicing dates, maintenance requirements, and the outcomes of equipment assessments, providing assurance that equipment used by people and staff remained safe and fit for purpose.

Care plans contained clear and personalised guidance to help staff respond safely in the event of an emergency. This included information about the location of utilities such as gas, electricity, and water shut-off points, as well as detailed instructions on how to support people to evacuate safely if required. Where people had specific mobility or health needs, care plans outlined any additional support required to ensure their safety during emergencies.

Regular reviews of environmental risks and equipment helped ensure potential hazards were identified and addressed promptly.

The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff to meet people's needs safely and effectively. Robust recruitment processes were followed, which included appropriate pre-employment checks, to help ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. This promoted people's safety and wellbeing from the point staff were recruited.

New staff completed a comprehensive induction that prepared them for their role and equipped them with the knowledge and skills required to provide high-quality, person-centred care. Ongoing training, supervision, and competency assessments enabled staff to maintain and develop their skills, ensuring they remained confident and competent in supporting people with a range of needs.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from leaders and the investment made in their development. One staff member told us, "This is simply the best training and support I have ever had from a company." Staff also appreciated the provider's policy of introducing care professionals to people before care commenced, which helped build trust, establish positive relationships, and ensure staff understood people's needs and preferences from the outset.

People were protected from the risk of infection through effective systems, robust risk management processes, and clear guidance for staff. The provider assessed and managed infection prevention and control (IPC) risks appropriately, ensuring safe care was delivered in people's homes and the risk of infection was minimised.

Care plans contained clear, personalised guidance on infection prevention and control practices, including the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the measures staff should take to reduce the risk of cross-contamination. Where people were identified as being at higher risk of infection, specific risk assessments and control measures were in place. For example, detailed guidance was available for staff supporting people with catheter care, outlining the procedures required to maintain hygiene, monitor for signs of infection, and escalate concerns promptly. This helped to mitigate risks and promote positive health outcomes.

Staff competence was regularly monitored through observations, spot checks, and supervision to ensure infection control procedures were understood and consistently followed in practice. These checks reinforced good practice and enabled any issues to be addressed promptly, helping to maintain high standards of hygiene, safety, and person-centred care. As a result, people received support from staff who understood how to manage infection risks effectively and safely.

The provider ensured medicines and treatments were managed safely and in a way that met people's needs, capacities, and preferences. People were involved in decisions about their medicines, and staff worked with them and relevant healthcare professionals to ensure support remained appropriate when changes to treatments occurred.

Medication Administration Records (MARs) were completed accurately and subject to regular audits. These checks enabled the provider to identify and address any issues promptly, which reduced the risk of errors and supported safe medicines management. Where medicines were prescribed on an 'as required' basis, clear protocols were in place to guide staff on when and how these medicines should be administered, which ensured people received them safely and consistently.

Staff understood people's medication needs, including the importance of administering time-sensitive medicines at the prescribed times. Records showed people received their medicines as intended, which helped maintain their health and wellbeing. Staff received regular medicines training, ongoing supervision, and practical competency assessments which ensured they remained knowledgeable and competent in their roles.This robust approach to medicines optimisation helped ensure people received safe, effective treatment that reflected their individual needs and preferences, while providing assurance that any concerns were identified and addressed at the earliest opportunity.