Angelic Care

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.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events.Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.For example, shift handovers were held each morning where concerns and actions required were discussed. However, there was no oversight of any developing trends or themes such as repeated cancellation of calls, reducing opportunities to improve practice and standards within the service. After our assessment, the management team took steps to include this in their oversight.

The provider 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.Care files showed evidence of collaboration between the provider and other healthcare services, such as hospitals and specialist services, which ensured that people received support when required. Information and advice from healthcare professionals was clearly recorded within people’s care plans. The management team had recently introduced a pre-assessment questionnaire to support the safe admission of people into the service.

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 followed the internal and external safeguarding process which was confirmed by records. One relative told us "[Name] is safe with them". Staff had received relevant safeguarding training, and one staff member told us "If I have concerns, I know how to report it to keep the person I care for safe".

The provider 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. People told us staff kept them informed and let them know if any changes to their care were needed. The management team were told when there was a change in people's support needs, so appropriate action was taken to manage risk. A person who needed complex medical support was enabled to access the local community to improve their quality of life and reduce the risk of isolation.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.Where people used equipment, there was a system in place to make sure that this was serviced, checked and safe for use. Risk assessments were in place to protect people and staff from harm. The service made sure staff could always contact them in an emergency.

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.Staff were recruited safely, and induction processes supported inexperienced staff to learn skills through training and supervision. People told us they felt safe, and the staff were well trained. One person told us "Their training is good, especially around nutrition. They know how important that is".

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading. Spot checks of staff and audits showed that current national guidelines and standards were not always being followed by staff. The provider had not acted on this information to reduce the risks to people. The management team agreed to take action to address this after our assessment.

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. Records within the service showed instances where people’s prescribed medication had not been administered. The provider had taken appropriate action immediately and had provided additional training and support to staff to reduce the risk of repeat occurrences.