Sahal Cares

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 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and fit and proper persons employed.

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.

There were systems to learn when things went wrong. The provider had procedures for responding to accidents, incidents and complaints. Staff told us they knew what to do following adverse events, including reporting these. There had not been any accidents or incidents at the service. There were processes for investigating these when needed.

The registered manager told us they discussed theoretical scenarios with staff to help them reflect on how they would respond to different situations.

There were systems to support safe transitions between services. The registered manager worked closely with people, their families and doctors to make sure they understood people’s care needs. People told us they were happy with the way the provider shared information to help ensure they were safe.

There were systems to help safeguard people from abuse. Staff undertook training to understand how to recognise and report abuse. They were able to explain the actions they would take. There had not been any safeguarding concerns at the service. The registered manager knew their responsibilities to work with other agencies to investigate concerns and protect people from avoidable harm. People told us they felt safe and trusted staff. A person commented, “I have no concerns. The staff are very good and I feel safe.”

The provider had not always assessed or planned for risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. There was limited information relating to people’s health conditions and the risks they may experience because of these. Assessments of people’s mobility and risk of falls did not include personalised information about their needs or how these may affect their mobility. Some people used equipment to keep them safe. The provider had not assessed risks relating to this equipment and there were no records to show staff had been assessed as competent using this. When the provider had assessed risks, they had not created plans to show how these would be managed or mitigated. Failure to ensure clear and personalised records placed people at risk of unsafe care and treatment. We discussed these concerns with the registered manager who agreed to improve these systems and records.

Nevertheless, people told us they felt staff managed risks and they were safe. A person commented, “[My care worker] always helps me on the stairs which helps me feel safe.”

The provider assessed people’s home environments and discussed any concerns they identified with people using the service and their relatives. Their assessments included checks to ensure people had adequate fire safety systems in place.

The provider’s systems for recruiting staff were not robust enough. Whilst they carried out some checks on potential staff, these were not always complete. For example, staff had not recorded full details of previous employment, and the provider had not obtained up to date, verified references from previous employers. Information provided by staff was inconsistent and sometimes included conflicting dates. This information had not been analysed by the provider. Failure to ensure thorough checks were made on staff placed people at risk of unsafe care from unsuitable staff. We discussed these concerns with the registered manager who agreed to improve these systems and records.

People told us they liked the staff who arrived on time and stayed for the agreed scheduled visits. Comments from people included, “I have the same regular carer. I get on well with [them]. [They] are always on time”, “I usually have the same carer and there is not a problem with time keeping.” Staff told us they had information about their scheduled work in advance. They had enough travel time and did not feel rushed.

Staff undertook a range of training to help them understand their roles and responsibilities. They received supervision and support from the registered manager.

There were effective systems for infection prevention and control. People told us staff followed good hygiene practices. Staff undertook training to understand about these. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves. The registered manager carried out spot checks on staff to ensure they followed procedures, including good infection prevention and control.

A person using the service commented, “The carers remove their shoes at the door. They respect my household. They wear different gloves for cooking and personal care. I am happy with that and they are very clean.”

Systems for managing medicines were not always safe. People using the service at the time of our assessment mostly managed their own medicines. The provider assessed the risks associated with this and people were happy with the arrangements. However, the records staff kept relating to medicines management were not complete. For example, administration records did not contain all the required details and had not always been completed clearly.

We did not identify any concerns relating to administration of medicines. However, failure to maintain clear and accurate records increased the risk of errors.

Staff completed training to understand how to handle medicines. However, the registered manager had not assessed their competencies, skills or knowledge relating to this. This meant they could not be assured that staff understood and could apply their learning.