Blossom Home Care Grimsby

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 rated 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.

The management team reviewed all safeguarding, accident and incident records to identify any responsive action required. Any lessons learned were shared with the team and discussed in staff meetings. Staff provided examples of improvement areas they had discussed together in staff meetings.

We noted some accident and incident records could be clearer and more detailed. The management team demonstrated good knowledge of the specifics of these incidents, and appropriate action had been taken, but clearer records would help ensure potential opportunities to learn from incidents were not missed. The registered manager agreed to address this with the team.

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 using the services and relatives were involved in establishing a plan for care and support prior to receiving a service. They received relevant information about the service, including a handbook, to help aid the transition. Staff worked with relevant healthcare partners if people accessed more than one service, and there was good communication between partners. One external professional told us, “I have always found them really good to work with.”

People had a ‘hospital passport’ which ensured key information was available to hospital staff, should someone need to transfer into hospital.

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.

Information about safeguarding procedures was available to staff and they received training in this area. Staff were aware of signs of potential abuse, and how to report any concerns. They were confident the management team would deal with any issues appropriately. People and relatives could also raise any concerns in review meetings or by speaking to any of the management team. The registered manager kept a record of any safeguarding concerns and action taken to ensure people’s safety and wellbeing.

Staff received training related to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA); they respected people’s decisions and promoted their human rights.

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.

Risk assessments were in place, relating to people’s individual needs, such as mobility, health conditions and skin integrity risks. People were involved in the development of plans to help manage any identified risks, and staff respected people’s choices and decisions in relation to this.

Staff could access information about how to support people and manage any risks on the provider’s electronic care planning system and an app on their phone. There was also an on-call system so staff could seek advice or raise and concerns out of normal office hours. People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported 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.

The provider completed an environmental risk assessment to consider and manage any potential risks to people or staff from working in each person’s home. This included factors such as pets and security. These assessments were kept under review.

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.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed and the provider completed appropriate pre-employment checks. The provider had introduced a new system within the last year for completing and recording these checks, which the registered manager told us was working more effectively.

Staff completed training and shadowed experienced staff before working on their own. The provider also completed competency checks and observations of practice. Staff were satisfied with the induction, training and supervision they received. One told us, “I feel confident with the training I’ve had, and I know that if I asked for more training there would never be a problem with that. They’d be very happy to provide us with any extra training we felt we needed.”

The provider had an electronic system to plan rotas and schedule care visits. Most staff told us they had sufficient time to get to each visit, and they felt the 50-minute minimum call times allowed them enough time to get to know people and engage socially alongside their core tasks.

People and relatives felt the service was reliable and one commented, “They have never let me down.” Most people and relatives said staff were punctual and usually let them know if there were unexpected delays. A relative told us the care staff “seem good” and healthcare professionals told us, “The carers have demonstrated impressive skills” and “They are well trained and knowledgeable.”

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.

Infection prevention and control policies and procedures were in place, and staff completed training in this area. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and knew when and how to use this. The provider completed competence checks to ensure staff followed best practice.

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.

Medicines policies and systems were in place. Information was available in each person’s care plan about any support they required with their medicines, and any preferences or special instructions. This included instructions about when to use medicines prescribed for use ‘as and when required’. Staff recorded on the provider’s electronic system when they had assisted someone with their medicine. We found records were usually appropriately completed, and showed medicines had been given in line with people’s prescription. We noted an anomaly where an incorrect code had been used on a medicine administration record, so it was not picked up in a subsequent audit that the person’s medicines had not been available. The registered manager agreed to ensure continued vigilance in this area.

Staff received regular training and periodic competence checks to check their skills. Where any errors occurred, appropriate action was taken to investigate and identify any lessons learned or further action required.

People and relatives confirmed they were satisfied with the support received in relation to medicines and prescribed creams.