Beacon Home Care Services Limited Also known as Beacon Home Care Services Limited Penrith

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 66 (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 provider had systems in place to monitor and respond to any accidents or incidents.

Families told us they felt safe with the care being provided and felt confident that concerns would be listened to and acted upon appropriately.

One person had raised a difficulty they were experiencing with a particular member of staff. The provider listened to the concerns and addressed this promptly to the satisfaction of the person using the service.

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 felt strongly about ensuring people received smooth transitions between care services and this included when people were admitted to or discharged from hospital. Peoples care plan information was available to be printed off and taken to hospital, in the form of an emergency hospital pack. These were regularly reviewed and updated to ensure accuracy.

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 kept detailed records of safeguarding concerns which had occurred. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately and was responsive to any further information requested from them during safeguarding investigations.

Staff we spoke to had undertaken safeguarding training. They told us they felt confident in identifying and raising any safeguarding issues.

People who use the service told us they would feel comfortable contacting supervisors or managers if issues arose and felt safeguarding concerns would be taken seriously.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Some risk assessments for people were not always up to date in peoples care plans. For example, a choking risk assessment required updating following a recent Speech and language therapy (SALT) assessment. This was reviewed by the management team and updated during the inspection.

Staff generally knew people well and the risks they faced in their day to day lives. Risk assessments detailed the support people required for tasks such as getting dressed and taking their medication.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental risks were assessed during the initial assessment of people’s homes, and any concerns were identified in care plans. When any environmental issues arose or changes were identified through reviews, these were reported back to the appropriate services such as local authority and occupational therapists.

Personal evacuation plans were in place for people to ensure they would be safe in the event of a hazard.

The provider referred people to the local fire service for advice and information where appropriate.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development but did not always have oversight of the recruitment process. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Recruitment checks were in place prior to staff starting to work at the service. However, we identified gaps in recruitment records which had not been explored during the recruitment process.

Staff were supported to complete training and shadowing opportunities before beginning in the role. However, some areas of training needed strengthening as some staff had not completed training that was important to their role. During the assessment the management team reviewed training to ensure this met with good practice guidance.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff employed to provide consistent care for people. Feedback regarding staffing levels and reliability was positive overall. Most relatives said staff attended consistently and visits were generally completed on time.

The management team had a positive approach to learning and supported staff to attend relevant training to support their development.

Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals which provided them with opportunities for ongoing development.

All staff spoken with told us they felt supported. One member of staff told us, “I’m happy with my job. The teamwork is amazing. The support from management and the flexibility is excellent.”

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 were aware of their responsibility to follow safe infection prevention and control policies.

Staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment on care calls and spot checks were undertaken by senior staff on carers twice a year to ensure this was happening when undertaking personal care.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

The management team audited medicines records each month, however records of what was checked were not detailed. We discussed this during the assessment, and a more detailed audit record was put in place.

We found some care plans needed updating regarding people’s medication and that staff required further training on using the electronic medicines recording system.

Medication support was consistently described positively by people and families we spoke to.

Families told us staff managed complex medication arrangements very effectively, Examples included staff returning later to administer medication if a person was not home and raising concerns about medication supplies.