Annies Homecare Services Ltd

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 improved to good.

At our last assessment, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation safe care and treatment. At this assessment, the provider had made enough improvements which meant they were no longer in breach of the regulation. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 and quality and compliance manager showed how they had worked to create a positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Since the previous inspection many changes had been implemented to support the running of a safe and effective care service.

The changes were varied and included the introduction of a digital care platform that connected care, rostering, finance and compliance systems, together with a secure staff application that kept everyone informed, including people’s relatives if appropriate. One relative said, “The introduction of the [digital care record] has also been transformational for me, as I can now see everything that is going on. This is important, as whilst myself and [family member] drop-in multiple times a day, we tend not to get involved in the personal care so a first-hand report from the staff, direct to my phone, is fantastic.”

The management team structure had changed since the previous inspection. There was now a clear structure and channels to report any concerns. There was an increased focus on compliance and a better understanding about how compliance leads to better outcomes for people.

Staff told us they were confident any concerns about safety were listened to, investigated and reported thoroughly. Lessons were learned and embedded into daily practice where appropriate.

Care and support was planned and organised with people, together with their relatives and relevant health and social care professionals in ways that helped to ensure continuity. The views of people who use the service, partners and staff were listened to and considered.

The management team had a strong understanding of safeguarding and how to take appropriate action. There were effective systems, processes and practices to help make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. People were appropriately supported if they felt anxious or unsafe.

Staff told us the management team were responsive to risk. For example, a staff member was concerned a person with declining capacity may not be able to open their door to let support workers in due to their limited mobility. To address this potential risk a best interest meeting was held and as a result the management arranged for a key safe to be installed with the consent of the person. A staff member said, “The registered manager is approachable and listens to concerns and acts on them.”

The management team demonstrated a clear understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) used only when it was in the best interest of the person.

At our previous inspection in October 2023 the provider had not ensured risks to people's safety were assessed and managed. At this inspection we found the provider had improved their system of assessing and managing risks to people’s health, safety and welfare.

People were informed about identified risks and supported to keep themselves safe. Risk assessments were person-centred, proportionate, and regularly reviewed with the person, where possible. A balanced and proportionate approach to risk supported people and respected the choices they made about their care and support.

Risk assessments were completed for all new care packages to identity potential risks to people and staff. A staff member said, “Identified risks can then be minimised by looking at adaptions or removing the risk altogether. This helps to keep people living at home as they wished to in safety.” 

Staff told us of a person who needed an urgent occupational therapy assessment because their mobility had declined. Whilst they were awaiting the assessment the decision was made with the person and supported by risk assessments to have two support workers attending to their care. This temporary solution helped to secure the person’s safety and that of the support workers too. 

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider operated robust and safe recruitment practices to help make sure all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role.

There were enough staff with the right skill mix to help make sure people received consistently safe, good quality care to meet their needs. Staff and management both told us the service was a little short staffed at this time,but that recruitment was underway and people’s needs were being met by staff picking up extra shifts and management doing hands on care in the interim. People told us they had continued to receive their care and support with no negative impact on them.

Relatives told us people received their care and support from a small group of staff, this meant staff and people got to know each other well and form bonds. People told us staff were usually punctual, one relative said, “When staff know they are running very late, we usually get a call from the office to advise us.”

Staff received the support they needed to deliver safe and effective care including supervision, appraisal and support. Staff at all levels had opportunities to learn, and poor performance was managed appropriately.

People were protected as much as possible from the risk of infection because the provider had introduced clear roles and responsibilities around infection prevention and control. The staff team received training to give them the skills and knowledge to help protect people from the risk of infection and their competency was assessed at spot checks.

People’s medicines were appropriately administered in line with the relevant legislation, current national guidance or best available evidence, and in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff received training and regular refresher training to give them the skills and confidence to safely administer people’s medicines. Every staff member administering medicines undertook a competency assessment to help assure the provider of the staff team’s skills and knowledge.

People and relatives were confident the staff skills and knowledge enabled them to safely administer medicines. One relative told us, “We were very impressed that when the chemist stopped providing pre-filled dosset boxes they staff coped with switching to managing individual dosages without any problems.”