UKG Care Havant

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

This service scored 59 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had processes in place for staff to report incidents and near misses. These included reviewing and learning from incidents and adjusting people’s care accordingly to keep them safe. We reviewed incident and complaints records. Staff and leaders told us of some action they had taken following incidents and complaints to keep people safe. However, records did not show what lessons had been learned for all incidents to reduce the likelihood of similar concerns occurring. For example, in relation to assessing care when supporting people using oxygen.

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 supported people to transition into the service including from hospital and kept in contact with health professionals to support people safely back to their home. This included completing a comprehensive initial assessment with the person and their representatives. The provider told us how they kept in touch with the hospital daily to find out when the person was ready to come back home to ensure a safe discharge back into their home.

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.

Staff had received training around safeguarding. They were confident in recognising and responding to safeguarding concerns including when people refused their care due to self-neglect. Senior staff ensured safeguarding concerns were investigated and reported to the appropriate authorities.

The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Comments included, “The family feel he is very safe 100% – it’s the way they talk to him, and always treat him very respectfully”, “Care staff are all very trustworthy.”

Although the provider aimed to work with people to understand and manage risks, these were not always clearly documented. The provider considered risk to people as part of their assessment, which included personal care, moving and handling and health conditions. However, how staff were to support people to reduce the risk of harm was not always comprehensively documented in people’s care plans to ensure staff would always know how to support people. For example, in relation to the risk associated with diabetes and people living with dementia.

Feedback from people using the service indicated they felt safe and supported, and that staff understood their individual needs and risks. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people safely, and feedback from staff suggested they knew people well and could describe how they managed risks in practice. The staff team was stable and consistent, which helped reduce the risk posed by gaps in documentation.

The provider told us they have taken immediate action to address these shortfalls and showed us records had been updated following our on-site visit during the inspection.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider carried out assessments of people’s home environments to identify and reduce any risks related to the delivery of care. However, these were not always robust. There were no fire risk assessments for people who required creams which had a fire risk related to them or for people who had oxygen in their home, which meant additional precautions needed in the event of a fire were not in place. Environment risk assessments were not always robust around other fire precautions including people who were sleeping on an air mattress.

We relayed our concerns to the provider who took immediate action to provide more comprehensive information to staff to guide them to reduce the risk of fire when supporting people. The provider did inform staff to carry out weekly fire alarm checks and weekly pendent checks for every person using the service as part of the care plan to promote safety.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. People and their relatives told us staff were not always consistent and did not always receive calls from familiar staff. Care call times varied and could often be late for some people resulting in people having to wait for personal care. One person told us, how they were meant to have a call earlier in the morning and it was much later. Other comments included, “Quite often late because of staffing issues.”, “They get here late. Sometimes it’s gone 2pm.”

At times the service had had to cancel people’s care calls due to shortness of staff. We were told this was at a last resort and people were informed. Staff told us staffing levels were getting better as more staff had been recruited. Staff received training relevant to their role and systems were in place to promote their ongoing learning and development, including regular supervision, checks of their competency and shared learning through team meetings. The registered manager had a training matrix in place which evidenced staff had completed all their statutory and mandatory training and competency assessments to ensure they were able to meet people's individual needs. Staff had been recruited safely.

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. People raised no concerns in relation to infection control. They told us staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) whilst they were providing care. The provider had effective infection control policies and procedures in place.

The service carried out spot checks on staff to ensure they were following correct infection control procedures and wearing PPE safely. Staff told us there were appropriate supplies of PPE available, which helped enable them to follow good hygiene practices in people’s homes.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

People’s medicines administration records showed people had received their routine medicines safely and staff had a good understanding of best practice in medicines administration. Staff had received training and had been assessed as competent to provide medicines safely to people in their homes.

However, some improvements were needed for records to show good practice was followed when supporting people with their medicines. For example, for people prescribed as required medicines (PRN), records did not include the reason for giving the medicine, what the medicine was for and how it needed to be administered. Incomplete medicine records increased the risk of medicine errors occurring. Some records for medicines for people who required prompting were not always robust or in line with the provider’s policies and national guidance. The provider took action during the inspection to address some shortfalls but records for PRN medicines still needed to be recorded with more detail to ensure staff had sufficient information to safely administer these medicines.