Oice Support Services

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. This key question has been 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.

Staff morale was good, and the staff team enjoyed working with each other. There was a good supportive teamwork established. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. The provider had an open and honest approach to addressing safety concerns and issues. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had a clear vision for the direction of the service which demonstrated ambition and a desire for people to achieve the best outcomes possible.

There was an appropriate process for new referrals, obtaining a copy of the person’s initial assessment, and then carrying out their own assessment of need, before deciding whether they would be able to provide support. There was an electronic care record system in place, which care staff had access to. This helped ensure care was provided in a planned, responsive and organised way. One healthcare professional confirmed, “They were very responsive to new moving and handling techniques and the equipment that was recently introduced. They provided opportunities for care staff to familiarise themselves with the equipment, as well as an opportunity to practice the correct use, to achieve the best outcomes for the person.”

People were safe and knew how to raise concerns about any abuse or neglect. Staff understood how to ensure people are protected from abuse and neglect. Managers and staff understood safeguarding and how to take appropriate action to keep people safe. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.
The provider had also been invited to attend safeguarding meetings by the Local Authority, relating to concerns they had received. The provider had attended and co-operated with those safeguarding investigations. Further guidance was given to the provider by the inspector relating to notification requirements, to ensure CQC were notified at the initial point a safeguarding allegation was made as good practice, whether these had been accepted by the Local Authority or not.
 

People were informed of their individual risks during their initial assessment and the information was used to inform their care plan and how to mitigate the risk. Staff respected the choices people had made about how their care was to be delivered. Records were person centred, and guided staff how to provide support safely. The electronic care records system meant staff had access to all of the information and any updates immediately.

People and staff were supported from any potential risks in people’s own homes. An environmental risk assessment of each person’s home was carried out as part of their initial referral assessment, to identify whether the person’s home was safe and suitable for the provider’s care staff to provide support. This included identifying any specific moving and handling equipment, such as a hoist, which the provider’s staff would be required to use. In such cases, staff were then given the necessary familiarisation training, so they understood how to use a person’s hoist equipment safely. Any equipment used to provide safe care, was checked by staff prior to each use. The provider had a health and safety policy in place which identified expectations of staff to maintain safety for themselves and of people using the service.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff, to provide safe, good quality care that met people’s individually assessed needs. People received the care they needed and confirmed their staff arrived at the planned call time and stayed for the agreed visit length. The provider had robust and safe recruitment practices in place to make sure all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their roles.

Staff received training appropriate and relevant to their role, this was embedded into practice, by their competency being assessed. Training was refreshed at regular intervals, to maintain required knowledge and skills. However, on reviewing training records, we identified an administrative issue, which meant the recent updated system was not accurate and did not correctly identify all training completed, nor all the courses completed with an external training provider. They were able to evidence all the required training was held on separate files, and we were assured this would be reverted back to the original way of recording immediately.
 

People were protected as much as possible from the risk of infection. They were supported to maintain their personal hygiene in line with their needs and preferences. Staff understood their role and responsibilities for maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in people’s own homes, as well as their own hygiene, including hand washing. Staff understood the importance of food safety, when preparing or handling food, following required standards and practice. Staff were provided with and used PPE (personal protective equipment), in line with recommended national guidance.

People’s care plans clearly demonstrated whether they needed support with their medicines or not. Not all people receiving support required assistance with medicines. Records included the details of the medicines prescribed and reasons for taking them. Staff received the necessary training in how to support people with medicines safely. Effective audits were in place to monitor for any emerging issues, such as individual staff re-training. They also monitored where errors had been identified as being inadvertently caused by external agencies and/or the person’s family. This demonstrated the provider had taken reasonable steps following a ‘lessons learned’ incident, to ensure people’s medicines were being safely managed and administered.