You are here

Archived: Keystone Healthcare Limited

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 November 2013
Date of Publication: 18 December 2013
Inspection Report published 18 December 2013 PDF | 85.58 KB

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 18 November 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

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

We saw appropriate policies and procedures for infection prevention and control (IPC) were in place and the manager told us they were the nominated IPC lead. We saw from the training records that all staff had received training in infection control. This showed the agency had systems in place to help prevent and control infections.

We saw that personal protective equipment was available for staff to use when delivering personal care in people’s homes. This was confirmed by the feedback in the annual satisfaction survey. One person commented, “The staff are smart and clean and always wear gloves and plastic aprons.” The manager showed us records which demonstrated that staff regularly collected supplies of aprons, gloves and hand gel from the agency office. This showed the agency provided protection to staff to minimise exposure to infections that could be caught at work.

We saw that the three monthly spot checks and observations of staff were carried out by the care co-coordinators. These included questions about staff use of personal protective equipment and compliance with hand hygiene requirements. This showed staff compliance with the service’s infection prevention and control procedures was monitored.

The provider may find it useful to note that one person’s observation records recorded that the support worker had not washed their hands in two out of their three recent observations. This meant this support worker had not learnt and improved their practice following the feedback given at the end of their observations. We noted that the observation sheets, which included comments about the lack of hand washing, were signed by the both the observer and the staff member being observed.

The provider may also find it useful to note that, at the time of our visit, we found staff were not being assessed or offered immunisations in line with current national legislation. When we asked the manager and director about this they told us information about immunisation against relevant infections was provided to staff at the recruitment stage. They told us the agency had a contract with a private occupational health service. We found there was no risk assessment in place in relation to the requirements for staff immunisations; this is best practice. This meant staff may not be protected from the exposure to infections that can be caught at work.