Shores Homecare 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 62 (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 culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. However, it was not always clear from documentation what actions had been taken.

Safety incidents were identified and recorded in a timely manner. These were quickly and appropriately investigated. Updates and learning from these were shared with staff using electronic messaging, discussions in individual supervisions or in team meetings. However, the paper incident logs used by the service did not always record what action had been taken.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They did not always make sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The service had developed strong relationships with partner organisations to ensure people’s care needs were known and understood. However, in some instances this information had not always been captured in a timely manner to ensure care plans were fully completed. The deputy manager had arranged for these to be completed immediately following our inspection visit.

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.

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure people were protected from abuse. Staff confirmed managers were proactive in ensuring action was taken quickly when concerns were raised. A staff member said, “They (people) are absolutely safe. We raise concerns, they’re actioned immediately by the appropriate manager; they are so good.” A relative confirmed, “Absolutely, yes, [name of person] is safe.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. However, care plans did not always contain enough information about how risks were managed and what staff should do in the event of an emergency. There was a lack of consistency across different people’s care plans about how risks were managed.

For example, one person required a hoist to support them to move. Their care plan did not contain enough detail about how many staff would be needed to support them. Another person required a thickener to be added to their drinks. Their care plan did not contain enough detail to direct staff how to do this. Whilst staff we spoke to were aware of how to perform these tasks safely, there was a risk information was not available for new or irregular staff.

The deputy manager provided assurances after the inspection visit that these care plans had been updated. The deputy manager had made plans to review all aspects of risk across the service.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. However, not all risks to staff were recorded or mitigated against.

For example, some people’s care plans did not always record all the risks in the environment or how they would be mitigated. One person used bed rails but did not have a risk assessment for this.

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.

Robust and safe recruitment systems were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff told us they received a thorough induction and were supported through regular supervisions. People and their relatives told us they received care from a consistent staff team, who they felt were well-trained. A staff member described team meetings as, “A good opportunity to see all the team and build relationships. Good for staff morale (and) team building.” Staff told us there was enough staff.

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 received training and were knowledgeable about infection prevention and control. The service undertook spot checks and monitored PPE usage to ensure staff were using PPE appropriately. People confirmed staff wore gloves and aprons at all times. A relative told us staff, “Always, always wear PPE”.

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.

Staff received training and checks on their competency to administer medicines. The registered manager was responsible for updating the electronic system with a second check undertaken by the deputy manager. Staff explained how any changes to people’s prescriptions were updated quickly to ensure people received the right medicine at the right time.