Right at Home Lymm and Warrington South

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 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.

Any concerns about people’s safety were identified and acted upon. The provider reviewed incidents to identify the cause and took action to reduce the risk of them happening again. When issues with medicines had been identified, action was taken to keep people safe and resolve the issues with them and their families. This included checking that the issues had been resolved, reminding staff about correct medicines management and providing further training or competency checks where needed.The provider looked at lessons learned following falls. One fall had resulted in corrective action as well as an enhancement of care practice resulting in a wider consultation with staff, people and relatives. This had led to the introduction of measures such as the development of a structured falls response process including training, observations and other competencies.

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.

Information was gathered from people, relatives and others involved in their care and support to understand their individual needs and any risks to their safety. This information was used to develop individualised care plans and risk assessments. This ensured people received safe and appropriate support from the time they started using the service. The provider explained how they always worked closely with people’s families and relevant health and social care professionals.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve this. 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 their relatives told us they felt safe when receiving support. Staff demonstrated they were able to identify any safeguarding concerns and had received training. Systems were in place to report any safeguarding concerns if they arose. The service had not been the subject of any safeguarding investigations since its initial registration in 2022.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. 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 to keep people safe when receiving support and to identify risks in their homes. These were reviewed and kept up to date. People were involved indeveloping their own risk assessments.

The provider was fully aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Although the provider was not responsible for people’s accommodation, detailed and up-to-date risk assessments were in place for staff about risks in each person’s home. These identified potential environmental hazards that could place people and staff at risk. Staff were provided with information on what actions to take in people’s homes in the case of an emergency. This approach reflected the provider’s commitment to keeping people and staff safe. A case study showed how hazards in a person’s home had been identified and acted upon with their involvement. This demonstrated a preventative approach to ensuring people’s environments were safe.

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.

Any concerns about people’s safety were identified and acted upon. The provider reviewed incidents to identify the cause and took action to reduce the risk of them happening again. When issues with medicines had been identified, action was taken to keep people safe and resolve the issues with them and their families. This included checking that the issues had been resolved, reminding staff about correct medicines management and providing further training or competency checks where needed.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They always quickly detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and always shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. A case study showed how the provider worked with a person to identify and address hygiene risks in their home. This helped reduce the risk of infection and improve the safety of their living environment.

This demonstrated the provider had sought to improve the living conditions of the person in partnership with them as well as a proactive and preventative approach. The provider had a personal protective equipment policy (PPE). Staff had received training in infection control. No one using the service expressed any concerns about the hygiene standards adopted by staff.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Where appropriate, support plans promoted peoples in managing their own medicines and set out the support they needed from others.

Support plans contained details of people’s preferences of how they wanted medicines to be administered. Where people had been assessed as requiring covert administration of their prescribed medication, appropriate best interest processes had been followed. Staff had received training in medication administration and had their competency to do this checked on a regular basis. Where medication refresher training or additional assurance in respect of staff competency was required; this was completed. Records were maintained following administration of all medicines. These were found to be accurate, and the provider had the opportunity to review medication administration records to ensure accuracy and correct administration. Body maps were available to guide staff into applying prescribed creams to the correct areas. Information was available to staff in respect of the medication prescribed and their therapeutic role. Care plans clearly outlined the responsibilities in respect of ordering medication, their storage and administration.