A-Star Care Solutions-Main Office

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 newly registered 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 promoted a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to safety concerns and appropriately investigated and reported incidents. Managers used learning from incidents to identify opportunities for improvement and embed good practice.

The provider used effective systems to record and analyse information. Managers used this information to support continuous learning and service development.

Staff understood how to identify, report, and escalate concerns and incidents. They told us they felt confident raising concerns with managers or external agencies when required. Staff encouraged people to speak up about any worries. One staff member told us, “Being approachable is important, so that clients can speak to us. If clients are not themselves, I will have a conversation to see if they want to tell me what is going on. I make sure I read notes before going into visits. Just having an open forum is important”.

The provider worked with people, their families and partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They were ready to ensure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

One manager spoke several languages and supported communication between people using the service and their healthcare professionals. This helped ensure people understood information shared about their care and treatment.

Families told us they felt very involved in their relatives’ care. Managers discussed, assessed, and acted on any changes to care to ensure support remained consistent and appropriate. The service followed up any changes through telephone calls or visits to confirm care was delivered as planned and achieved the intended outcomes.

The provider worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff had received safeguarding training and concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

We assessed whether the service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). At the time of the inspection, the service did not support anyone subject to community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which applies when people are deprived of their liberty in their own homes to keep them safe. However, managers demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities under the MCA. Staff supported people in ways that upheld their rights and showed a good understanding of the Act’s principles. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent and told us they would inform managers of any changes in a person’s capacity.

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.

The provider had comprehensive risk assessments in place. These covered all aspects of care delivery and identified potential risks, with clear guidance on how staff should reduce risks at each stage. Risk assessments considered people’s physical and emotional needs and included strategies to promote engagement while maintaining safety.

The service supported people to remain as independent as possible and avoided unnecessary deskilling. This approach, combined with a trained and stable workforce, increased people’s confidence to take part in activities they had not undertaken for some time. One relative told us how a carer “Was able to get (person) out the front door, have breakfast alfresco, then going for a walk, talking to neighbours…” which had not happened for a considerable period.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People received care in their own homes. The provider completed environmental risk assessments to identify potential hazards within people’s homes that could affect people using the service or staff delivering care. Managers used these assessments to take appropriate action and maintain safety for everyone involved.

The provider used both paper and electronic record‑keeping systems. Some risk assessments remained in paper files; however, the provider had begun transferring these records to electronic systems to improve oversight and accessibility.

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.

The provider operated safe recruitment practices. Managers completed appropriate pre‑employment checks for all staff before they started work. These included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks to ensure staff were suitable to work with people using the service.

New staff completed a structured induction programme. This included online and face‑to‑face training and shadowing experienced staff. Ongoing supervision, competency assessments, and spot checks supported continued learning and ensured staff delivered care safely and effectively.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff had access to Protective Equipment (PPE) at the point of care. Records showed that staff were trained in infection prevention and control.

The provider completed infection prevention and control (IPC) checks as part of both routine monitoring and unannounced spot checks. Records and audit findings showed staff consistently followed IPC guidance and remained compliant with required measures. Families confirmed that staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs. Staff and managers involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The provider managed prescribed medicines through an electronic medicines management system. Staff received medicines training and completed competency assessments to ensure they administered medicines safely. We reviewed three medicines records and found these were completed accurately. We identified no errors or concerns. Families told us staff administered medicines safely and without mistakes.

The provider did not administer any non‑prescribed or ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines, such as paracetamol or laxatives. However, the electronic system had the functionality to safely manage PRN medicines if this became necessary in the future.