You are here

North Short Term & Urgent Support Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 29 January and 7 February 2014
Date of Publication: 27 February 2014
Inspection Report published 27 February 2014 PDF

People should be cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection (outcome 8)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Providers of services comply with the requirements of regulation 12, with regard to the Code of Practice for health and adult social care on the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 29 January 2014 and 7 February 2014, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Our judgement

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

Reasons for our judgement

Effective systems were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We saw appropriate policies and procedures for infection prevention and controls (IPC) were in place. For example, the manager showed us policies for ‘health and safety at work’ and ‘bare below the elbows’. The manager also showed us the ‘infection control guidelines’. They told us this was issued to all staff. This addressed a number of topics, including; when to use personal protective equipment (PPE) and when staff should wash their hands. This showed the service had systems in place to help prevent and control infections.

The manager showed us a file containing various guidance documents. For example; correct hand washing techniques, MRSA and scabies. They told us this file was readily available for staff to access.

When we asked the manager who the nominated lead for infection prevention and control (IPC) at the service was, they told us the service did not have a nominated person. The manager said, “There are a number of different health care professionals based in the office. We have a wealth of clinical experts we can access if we need advice or information.” The provider may find it useful to note that the nominated lead for IPC should be documented within the service’s IPC policies. This is a requirement under the Code of Practice for the prevention and control of infections and related guidance (2010). This meant the provider did not have a nominated individual with responsibilities for infection prevention and control at the service.

We spoke with the manager about staff training in infection prevention and control. They told us this was completed during induction and then refreshed every three years. They showed us an infection control workbook, which, staff were completing. They explained staff would complete it and it would be checked by the home support co-ordinators during supervision sessions. The manager showed us evidence that nearly three quarters of the home support workers had completed the workbooks so far. Staff we spoke with confirmed they had either received infection control training or were currently completing this training.

The manager explained personal protective equipment was available from the office for staff to use when delivering personal care in people’s homes. This was confirmed by staff we spoke with. Their comments included;

“I collect them whenever I need them from the office. I use them for all personal care.”

“Yes, I use them (gloves and aprons) for all personal care and toilet calls.”

We asked the manager about staff immunisations. They said staff were asked about their immunisation status against relevant infections as part of their health screening when they commenced employment with the service. They told us the council’s Employee Healthcare Unit service was used as their occupational health department. This showed the provider was aware of their responsibility towards their employees to protect them from work related infection.