Guardian Homecare (Greenbrook House)

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. We have rated this key question 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 learned and good practice shared through incident analysis and team discussions.

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 were assessed before their care package began to ensure it was appropriate for them. Staff spent time getting to know people before providing care and support.

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. There was a safeguarding policy in place, and all staff had been trained in this subject and could describe the correct course of action to take if someone was being harmed or abused. One staff member told us, “I would ensure I escalated the concerns to the registered manager or I would report it to safeguarding myself.”

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. There were risk assessments in place which gave staff clear and appropriate direction with regards to reducing risk. For example, we saw how 1 person was supported to mobilise around their home with staff standing in certain positions to safely support them.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Each person had an environmental risk assessment in place. This assessed potential hazards in the living environment staff needed to be aware of, such as flammable creams people used, equipment, and space to complete personal care tasks.

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 there was enough staff to support them. One relative did feedback staff sometimes did not always come when their relative pressed their call bell. Another staff member told us the weekends could sometimes be understaffed, but this was not often. We shared this feedback with the registered manager.

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. There was an infection, prevention and control policy in place and staff confirmed they had access to PPE.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Where required people were supported to take their medicines safely by staff who were trained and had had their competency assessed. For people who required medicines as and when needed, often referred to as PRN, there were separate protocols in place for this.