Right at Home Calderdale

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 service 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 were robust systems in place to support a positive learning culture. The service had an adverse events tracker that logged accidents, incidents and safeguarding and identified any lessons learnt. Staff memos, team meetings and supervisions all discussed areas of learning with staff. The service used case studies to reflect on practice and provided opportunity for continued learning and improvement. Staff spoke positively about the learning culture within the service, and the approach leaders took regarding areas of learning. Comments included, “Yes, they [the service] are always adding things to the service to make it better.”

The service 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. However, there was a lack of information in initial assessment planning.

The service worked closely with services to establish safe systems around care. There were positive examples of multi-disciplinary working to maintain safe care for people. Staff implemented relevant support for people to manage risk, for example, physiotherapy exercises. One professional told us, “I’ve always found the staff to be approachable, friendly, committed and knowledgeable.”

However, initial assessment planning documentation lacked important information to support safe systems of care. This information was included within care planning documentation. The service has told us how they would make improvements in this area.

The service 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were given information about safeguarding in the service brochure and guide. People told us they felt safe with staff and leaders. There was a safeguarding policy in place. Safeguarding concerns were raised appropriately with the local authority and notified to the Care Quality Commission. Staff had safeguarding training however, lacked safeguarding knowledge on discussions with them. The service has told us how they will make improvements through additional training. One person told us, “I definitely feel safe with them.” Another person told us, “They checked everything when they first came and made sure, I was safe.”

The service 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.

Care documentation reflected a holistic view of people’s needs that reflected input from relevant professionals. The service worked well with professionals to ensure care was safe. For example, working with physiotherapy and occupational health teams when managing risks around moving and handling. People said relevant professionals were involved with their care. One person told us, “If anything medical is needed, they [staff] are happy to contact the GP or nurses.”. One professional said, “I've found the service very helpful and accommodating of my requests and suggestions to support the client in our care. I've been grateful to work as a team to support our client.”

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

Comprehensive environmental assessments were completed as part of initial care planning. These detailed every room in the property and highlighted any potential risks, and mitigating measures put in place. Staff escalated any environmental concerns to leaders within the service.

The service 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.

Recruitment processes were robust. There was evidence of regular supervision. Staff file audits were completed regularly by leaders within the service. Call log audits showed staff were on time for their visits and stayed the contracted duration. People told us staff were well trained, and competent in their role. One person told us, “[Staff] are very well trained and know exactly what to do.” Evidence showed staff had completed training relevant to fulfilling their role and staff told us they had enough training.

The service assessed or managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The service had an IPC policy in place. The risk management of IPC was reflected in people's care plans. This included the use of PPE, donning of and on procedures and good hand hygiene processes.

The service 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.

There were medication and “as and when required” protocols in place that were detailed. Medication audits were undertaken by leaders within the service to monitor for any reoccurring themes or concerns. Medication administration records were in place and evidenced people were receiving the correct dosage of medications at the correct time. Staff had received appropriate medication training to support them within their role. One person told us, “They [staff] support [my relative] with medication and I’m very confident it is done properly.” One staff member told us, “We [staff] were taught about the difference between prompt and administered. Then training on what to do if it hasn’t been taken and if it has been taken at the wrong time. There is also an e learning that tops up knowledge. The initial training was a 2 day course in person.”