Care Quality Services Oldham

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 after registering with a new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidableharm.

This service scored 75 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had systems in place to review and investigate accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns. Systems were in place for recording and analysing any trends and changes were implemented in response to any lessons learned.

People told us staff were responsive when incidents or accidents took place. This included when they were unwell and needed additional support, for example if they required medical attention.

Staff reported an open culture where they were encouraged to report all concerns. They told us,“If I had a problem, I would go to the [care co-ordinator], they are very understanding” and “[Registered manager] acts upon concerns.”

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.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. Information of care needs assessed by the local authority prior to people joining the service and information from people and their relatives was used to inform people’s care plans and risk assessments. A relative told us, “I was involved with completing [relative’s] care plan, which is very comprehensive but easy to understand.”

Processes were in place to ensure people received continuity of care, for example, when being transferred to hospital, their care slots remained available for a period of time to allow them to return back to the same care provider.

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.

People were protected from the risks of abuse and staff were trusted to keep them safe. One person told us, “I feel safe with them [staff].” A relative added, “I know [relative] is 100% safe by the way [relative] talks about their carers.”

Staff had received training in how to safeguard people. Staff we spoke with were confident to report concerns and satisfied that action would be taken to investigate them. Staff told us, “I would report [concerns] to manager, and I can contact the local authority if needed” and “If I have any safeguarding concerns, I report them immediately to my line manager or the on-call supervisor. I follow [provider’s] safeguarding policy.”

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.

The provider had an electronic care planning system and care plans provided guidance for staff to ensure people received safe and responsive care and support. Risks were assessed and mitigated to keep people safe. Risk assessments were person-centred and regularly reviewed.A relative told us, “Everything was sorted out in hospital before the care commenced, and I was consulted once [relative] got home. It is great, I have the [care planning] app so I can see everything that has been done and when. It really puts my mind at rest on a daily basis. [Relative] is prone to falling so the carers are all very aware of this, they try to ensure that nothing is in his way to cause him to fall. If he does fall, I am informed immediately, what morecan I ask for?”

People and relatives were involved in care planning. This was reviewed regularly or when people’s needs changed. One person told us, “I have reviews [of my care], and I have no issues.” A relative added, “We have reviews of [relative’s] care.”

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

People's care plans contained information which evidenced that the safety of people’s home environment had been considered. Environmental risk assessments were in place to ensure staff were safe whilst supporting people. Where people required the use of aids for safe moving and handling, risk assessments were in place to support staff to be able to use this equipment safely.

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.

Recruitment checks were robust to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff had the necessary safety checks in place before starting work and completed a full induction. A staff member commented, “I completed an induction and did 3 shadow shifts [observing experienced members of staff] and all the staff were very supportive if I ever needed any help.”

Staff received regular training and competency checks to ensure they were skilled to carry out care tasks. A staff member told us, “I’ve had full moving and handling training, including how to use equipment such as hoists, slide sheets, and stand aids. I only use equipment I’ve been trained and signed off as competent to use.”

Staff had opportunities for supervision [one to one support sessions with their line manager]. A staff member commented, “I get regular one to ones and spot checks, they are fine.”

The provider had systems in place to monitor staffing levels and ensure people received their visits as required. An electronic system was used to determine staffing levels, issue staff rotas and deploy staff to people’s care visits. People and their relatives told us, “They [staff] have never missed a call in 3 years, and they [staff] are also usually on time”, “We have a regular group of 8 carers” and “have 2 visits a day and the carers come when they are supposed to. I am never rushed, and the carers always have time to chat with me.”

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 in infection prevention and control and told us personal protective equipment (PPE) was readily available to them. A staff member told us, “We are fully supplied with PPE such as gloves, aprons, and masks. Supplies are restocked regularly, and if we ever run low, we can request more from the office or the designated collection points.”

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 were trained to administer medicines. Staff had to undertake training before they could administer medicines and received competency checks to ensure they administered medicines safely. Staff told us, “I completed [provider’s]medication administration training, which includes theory and practical assessment. I’m only allowed to administer medication once I’ve been deemed competent” and “I receive a medication observation every six months or If I’ve made an error, I’d have an observation[earlier].”

The provider had systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed and any concerns with medicines were flagged on their electronic systems. For example, the provider had a 4-hour medication gap tracker to ensure people had adequate timeframes between their repeated medicines, and medicine alerts were flagged on their electronic systems if people refused a medicine 3 times in a row, allowing staff to flag concerns with health professionals promptly. People told us, “The carers give me my tablets” and “They [staff] give me my medication and there have been no issues.”