Areys Care

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
Safe – this means evidence was sought that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This was the first assessment since the service registered with CQC on 29 May 2023. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. The provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and staffing.

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 50 (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. Staff did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Records did not always show that incidents, concerns and complaints were reviewed and used to support learning. Learning from these events was not always shared with staff or used to improve practice. This meant there was limited evidence that safety events were being used to improve care and make practice safer.

Staff were unable to consistently demonstrate awareness of lessons learned. There was also no recorded evidence, such as team meetings, supervision or competency checks, to show that learning had been shared, embedded and sustained in practice.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not always manage or monitor people’s safety. They did not always make sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People’s records were not always clear or up to date. Some records did not give staff enough guidance about escalating concerns, safeguarding issues, or changes in people’s needs. This meant staff did not always receive the information they needed to provide safe and consistent care.

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.

People and relatives said they felt safe. One relative said, “Carers are very good and my [family member] likes the carer very much.”

Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to report concerns. One staff member said, “Safeguarding is about protecting my client from any harm or abuse. If I identify any signs of abuse or neglect, I report to the office.” At the time of the assessment, the service had not recorded any safeguarding concerns.

The provider did not work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk management was not clear or person-centred. Care plans did not explain how staff should prevent risks, when to get help, or when to seek advice. For example, one falls plan said staff should “stay close” and “pick them up and make sure they are okay.” It did not explain how to reduce the risk of falls or what staff should do if the risk got worse. This meant staff did not have guidance to manage risks in a safe and consistent way.

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.

Checks of people’s home environments were not consistently evidenced in the formal environmental risk assessments reviewed.

This reduced assurance that risks to home environment and equipment were assessed and reviewed in a structured way to support safe care delivery.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staffing systems were not consistently effective. Recruitment checks and induction were completed, but training records, competency checks and supervision were not always evidenced. One staff member gave positive feedback about their own training, but this did not show the system was effective for all staff. This meant the provider could not always show staff had the right skills and support to provide safe care.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Infection risks were assessed and managed. People told us staff followed infection prevention control practices. However, records did not always show clear oversight. The provider could not fully show that infection prevention training and monitoring were embedded across the service.

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.

Medicines support arrangements were not always clearly and consistently documented. Where medicines support was provided, records did not always clearly show the level of support required (prompting, supervision or administration) or how staff should respond to missed doses or changes. This increased the risk of medicines errors and reduced assurance that medicines risks were being effectively managed in line with people’s needs and preferences.