Hearts of Care Agency

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good: This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Since the last inspection, the provider had substantially reduced the number of people using the service while addressing identified shortfalls. Systems had been introduced to identify patterns and trends in incidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns and support learning. However, some incident records lacked sufficient detail and analysis, limiting assurance that lessons would be identified and used to prevent recurrence. As few incidents or concerns had occurred, the provider could not demonstrate that these systems were fully embedded or effective in practice.

Staff said their learning was regularly updated, and best-practice guidance and information about changes in people’s needs were shared. However, there was limited evidence to demonstrate the impact of this learning on practice and continuous improvement.

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.

Management and staff shared relevant information with health and social care professionals when people’s needs changed. People’s care plans and risk assessments were updated following professional advice, supporting continuity when people moved between services or returned home from hospital.

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.

The person we spoke with said they felt secure and comfortable with staff and staff knew how to support them in a personalised way. They told us, “I am safe, no concerns. The carer knows how I like things done, what is needed. Never had a problem.”

Training records showed staff had completed safeguarding training. Staff we spoke with could describe specific safeguarding scenarios and how they would report concerns internally and to external bodies. A staff member explained that, depending on the situation, they would escalate concerns to the Local Authority Safeguarding Team, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), healthcare professionals or, in an emergency, the police.

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 person we spoke with was satisfied their personal risks were managed safely. They told us, “I have a care plan, I can do a lot myself, but the carer helps me to get [showered] safely.”

Risk assessments were person-centred and tailored to individual needs. This included for mobility, specific risk assessments provided staff with clear guidance to effectively mitigate fall risks and deliver safe 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 records contained an environmental risk assessment including the safety of people and staff inside the person’s property, with mitigations to manage those risks.

The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Staff received appropriate support, supervision and development and worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The person we spoke with was satisfied with the consistency, punctuality and duration of scheduled visits. They told us, “I know who to expect and when. They are on time, no concerns. I have the same carer most of the time and when they are off another carer comes who I know.”

Staff said the scheduling system worked well. A staff member told us, “We use an application where I can check my rota 2 weeks in advance and see who I will be visiting. The rota works very well. It is accurate.”

Staffing levels were sufficient to provide safe care. Training, supervision, annual appraisals and competency assessments supported staff competence and performance. However, clearer oversight was needed to monitor the number of supervision sessions planned and completed each year. The management team was receptive to this feedback.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed. Management confirmed, and records showed, that satisfactory Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were completed before staff worked alone.

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.

Systems to help prevent and control infection were in place. Training records showed staff had received relevant infection control and food hygiene training, and staff we spoke with said they had access to resources and equipment to reduce the risk of infections spreading. The person we spoke with said staff followed good hygiene practices and used personal protective equipment (PPE) when needed.

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.

People were not supported with medicines during the inspection, but safe administration systems were in place, and staff training was fully up to date.