Alcedo Care Central and East Lancashire

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 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Although the service strived to promote a proactive culture this was not consistently in place. They did not always listen to concerns and did not always investigate these in a timely way. Although we found some examples where lessons were identified and embedded into good practice, this was not consistent based on people’s feedback.

People’s relatives told us there was an open dialogue of communication with the registered manager and care staff, though they said the office staff were not always as responsive as they could be. One relative told us about an issue they encountered and said, “I’ve raised concerns, I’ve spoken to the office, and still nothing gets sorted."

Staff were knowledgeable about how to report accidents and incidents. Although we attempted to gather feedback from professionals, we only received a limited response. One professional told us, “I recently shared information in relation to a new care package that the staff had been late on one occasion and had not attended. This was straight away taken seriously, and parents were contacted for further information prior to an investigation being undertaken. The outcome that the staff member no longer worked for the company was shared, and I know that a thorough investigation was completed. This was undertaken quickly and efficiently, and the parent was also informed of the outcome of the investigation.” We were able to review examples of lessons learned which took place following incidents.

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.

People felt the care staff team work well together to support people. Staff spoke about how they get to know new admissions by reading care plans, one staff said, “I am sent the care plan for new clients.”

One professional told us, “The service, I believe, ensures continuity of care. They ensure that there is a staff team and will gradually introduce new staff where needed and this is discussed to ensure that it is undertaken at a level that is suitable.”

Pre assessments were completed before care was initiated and we were able to see some examples where appropriate referrals had been made.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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.

Staff were able to tell us how they would escalate any potential safeguarding concerns. Mental capacity and deprivation of liberty policies and procedures were in place. The registered manager confirmed people had access to advocates if they needed this support.

Staff recorded accidents and incidents and made safeguarding referrals to the relevant authority when needed. People and their relatives told us they felt safe with staff. One relative said, I’m absolutely over the moon with the care my relative is receiving. I know what good, safe care looks like, and this is it.”

The service had a safeguarding policy in place which supported good practice for both children and adults. Staff received training in safeguarding, and this was strengthened when the service introduced additional bespoke training for new staff with video scenarios, which help make safeguarding real for new starters.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and their relative’s felt risks were being managed. One relative told us, “They pick up quickly when something changes and they act on it straight away. I never have to chase or double-check - they’re proactive, which is a huge comfort to me." Staff spoke about how they are aware of various risks and support people with their healthcare needs.

Risk assessments were in place in relation to people’s needs and health conditions, where needed. Policies and procedures were in place to support risk management.

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

Generally, people and their relatives felt their loved one was in a safe environment. One person said, “I feel that the staff are trained well. They always seem to know what to do." Staff told us they had appropriate training, and competency checks were undertaken in how to safely use any required equipment. People’s care plans contained an environmental risk assessment for their living environment.

The service needed to drive improvement to make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They worked to ensure staff received effective support, supervision and development. Although staff worked well together to try and provide safe care that met people’s individual needs, further work was needed to ensure this was consistent.

People provided mixed feedback around staffing. Whilst some people provided positive feedback, we were told of examples where staff did not have the appropriate background to provide adequate support, and we were also told there were times when 2 care staff should have been provided but only one had turned up. One relative told us, “I shouldn’t be left to step in when they don’t send enough staff or don’t send someone with the right training. That’s what we’re supposed to be receiving care for.”

Staff feedback on staffing levels was mixed. Whilst some felt more staffing was needed, others felt staffing levels were ok. All the staff we spoke to told us all calls were covered even if there was a shortage of staff. Most calls were delivered on time, though further work could be done to improve this. The registered manager spoke about how they were looking to drive improvement in this area.

Staff told us they completed an induction when they started and that they felt they had the appropriate training for their role. Staff received supervisions and appraisals in line with policy. Safe recruitment practices were being followed. The registered manager told us that where possible, care workers and people were matched based on interests and religious backgrounds. Records indicated staff training was up to date.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were safely managed. The service had a system in place to ensure they had oversight in relation to ensuring liquids were dated when opened. Information guiding staff about the area where topical applications, such as creams, were to be applied was clear on body maps.

Staff received training in medicine administration and had their competencies checked. Clear and concise medication administration records were in place and were audited by the office. If any issues were identified, these were followed up. One person told us, “They always make sure I get my medicine. They prepare it for me and I take it myself.”