ONECARE WORLD HEALTH LIMITED

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 63 (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 reported concerns about how safety and investigations were completed, however improvements were needed to ensure lessons were learned and this was shared with staff. People did not report any concerns about incidents. A relative told us they were alerted when a person’s skin integrity became compromised. Staff told us they completed an incident form for any concerns which occurred. We saw incident forms were reviewed, and a log was maintained of all incidents. However, the log did not document the actions which had been taken to reduce risks and there was no reference to the learning shared. The registered manager told us any incidents which happened led to a review of individual risk assessments and care plans, and where needed referrals were made to other professionals such as falls prevention services when people had a fall. We will check for improvements to the systems for learning from incidents at our next inspection.

The provider had systems in place to support the delivery of safe care and support, however some of these systems required improvement to embed them fully. Medicines systems were in place and used by staff to document when people had their medicines administered. However, due to a problem with the system when changes occurred to call times this was not updated in the system. The registered manager told us they were working with the system provider to address this. Other systems were in place such as risk assessments, and these were working effectively.

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 told us they felt safe with staff and relatives views supported this. Staff had received training and understood how to recognise the signs of abuse and could describe how they would report any concerns. The registered manager had a system in place to ensure any incidents were logged and reported to the appropriate body. Policies and procedures for safeguarding were in place and staff understood their role within safeguarding.

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 and their relatives were supported to manage risks to their safety. A relative told us, “The staff use a hoist. [Person’s name] is safe in the hoist. The staff are very professional when using the hoist.” Staff could describe how they supported people to maintain their safety. Staff described managing risks relating to skin integrity, falls and mobility risks. Risk assessments were completed and these considered individual risks, this included environmental risks, risks relating to meals, drinks and medicines administration.

The provider did not consistently detect and control potential risks in the care environment. Environmental risk assessments were in place and considered some risks, however there were some gaps. A person had specific risks relating to fire and this had not specifically been assessed and planned for. We spoke with the registered manager about this, and they confirmed this would be immediately addressed with an appropriate risk assessment. Other environmental risks had been considered such as trip hazards; equipment use and access to the property.

The provider had enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Staff were trained and had an induction into their role, with ongoing supervision and support. People and relatives had mixed views about staff skills. Some felt the staff were consistently skilled and others felt some staff were not always skilled in all areas of their care. Staff, however, were knowledgeable and had received training in all aspects of people’s care, regular updates were also completed and competency was assessed. Mixed views were also expressed about the timing of calls with some feeling there was room for improvement whilst others reported no concerns. Call logs showed staff were mostly arriving on time, with a few exceptions and this was monitored live by the registered manager, allowing people to be notified if there was a delay with a call.A recruitment policy was in place however this was not consistently followed. There were some gaps in information in some application forms identified and this was shared with the registered manager. They took action to address this, and we will check for consistency with the application of the recruitment policy at our next inspection.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. People had mixed views about the use of protective equipment. One person told us staff did not initially have the protective equipment in place. Others told us staff always used this. We spoke to the registered manager about this, and they confirmed this was about the use of shoe covers in the persons home and once requested these were provided. Staff understood infection prevention control processes and had received training. There was a policy in place which followed national guidance and staff understood and followed this.

The provider ensured medicines were safely administered in line with people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People told us they received the support they needed with medicines. Staff could describe the approach they took to ensure people had their medicines safely and confirmed they had received training in how to administer medicines safely. People had risks relating to medicines administration considered and plans were put in place. Guidance was in place to ensure staff understood how to administer the medicines people needed. Medicines administration records were completed in the electronic system, however some of these records were not accurately completed when people had their medicines administered. We spoke to the registered manager about this and confirmed this was a system issue which was being addressed with the system provider and people had received the medicines they required.