Baobab Social Care Ltd - Somerset

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

Managers and staff told us they enjoyed working with each other. There was a good sense of teamwork and communication was good. Managers and staff listened to all concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. There was a clear vision for the service to deliver high quality and safe care to people. There was a focus on learning, and improving the service wherever possible.

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.

The provider had processes in place to ensure safe systems, pathways and transitions were maintained. There was a close working relationship with the discharge team at the local hospital to ensure continuity of care for people. One relative said their family member’s care plan, “Was arranged when [name] was in hospital. It is reviewed regularly; there must be a copy of it at their home.”

A comprehensive care needs assessment was carried out before any care was provided. One relative told us, “I had a 2 hour interview with [staff member name] in the office regarding the care needed [for their family member] when we began having [the provider] and it is all followed correctly.”

People were supported by a range of external health care professionals to help maintain and improve their well-being, including GPs and the district nursing team.

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.

People told us they felt safe with care staff who treated them well. One person said, “I certainly feel safe with my carers, they are all very good.” Relatives told us their family members were safe when being cared for. One relative said, “Yes, [name] is totally safe with them all [staff]; they are very attentive towards [name].”

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly. They had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard vulnerable people from abuse. There were appropriate policies and procedures in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.

At the last inspection we found risks to people being supported had not been identified and assessed appropriately. People did not have personal risk assessments relevant to their particular needs. At this assessment we found significant improvements had been made.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and relatives told us risks were well managed when care was provided. One person said, “Yes, I feel completely safe [when being cared for]. They [staff] have to use a hoist for me and there are always 2 of them and they always wait for each other to arrive before they start.”

People’s care records included information about individual risks and how staff should work to minimise risks to people. For example, risks around mobility, equipment use, skin integrity, health conditions and eating and drinking were assessed and regularly reviewed.

At the last inspection we found potential risks and hazards within people's homes had not been identified and no risk assessments were in place. At this assessment we found significant improvements had been made.

The provider assessed and controlled potential risks in each care environment. They made sure all equipment and environments supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental risks had been assessed and identified as part of the support and care planning process. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly. Staff reported any safety concerns to the managers promptly so appropriate action could be taken.

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.

People said they liked and trusted the staff who cared for them. One person said, “They [staff] are all well trained and very friendly towards me.”

People’s relatives spoke highly of staff, both in relation to the care they provided and their caring nature. One relative told us, “They [staff] all appear very well trained. They are all lovely girls. They make conversation with [name] which is nice for him.”

Staff told us they were well trained and well supported. One staff member said, “It's been a great experience working here. The training offered has been very good, a lot of mentorship and that allowed me to gain a lot of experience. This has boosted my confidence and has provided encouragement and helped develop my career.”

Staff training records showed staff had completed training in areas such as health and safety, first aid, safe manual handling techniques, how to care for people who were living with dementia and those with diabetes. Staff training was audited. Where staff needed to complete training or required a refresher, this was organised for them.

Formal supervision meetings with staff, spot checks and observations of their care practice and regular staff meetings were held. Records of staff meetings showed these were well attended, covered a range of topics and staff were encouraged to raise any issue they wished to discuss.

The provider had been successful in recruiting staff from overseas. They had the relevant licence to sponsor these staff and provided accommodation and ongoing support for them. People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely. Appropriate checks were carried out on all new staff to ensure they were able to work in the UK, of good character and safe to support vulnerable people.

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 were in place to reduce the risk of cross infection; this included the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) where necessary. People told us staff regularly used PPE and were aware of safe hygiene and infection control practices. One person said, “They [staff] always wash their hands first and wear gloves.”

The provider had an infection prevention and control (IPC) policy in place and staff had received appropriate training.

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.

Some people looked after their own medicines or were supported by family members. People who received support from care staff with medicines told us it was administered appropriately and at the right time. One person said, “I get regular carers who I know now. They give me my medicines at the proper times and that is recorded.”

Medicines were managed safely and people were supported appropriately. There was clear guidance and policies for staff to support people with medicines. Staff told us they had received training in the safe handling of medicines and had a competency check completed. There were audits in place to ensure safe and consistent practice. One staff member said, “Regular supervisory checks are conducted, which help maintain high standards.”