Homecare Plus Limited

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 full assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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, investigated these and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Systems were in place for recording, analysing and appropriately responding to incidents and events, such as safeguarding issues, complaints and accidents. One staff member said, “The company acts promptly whenever issues are reported.”

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’s hospital passports included important information about the person that would travel with them for any hospital admissions. This helped ensure a continuity of care. Although no impact on people, a small number of relatives told us transition from the old to the new provider could have been better, but felt more confident as time went on with the new management teams.

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.

Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew what signs may indicate poor care or harm. Safeguarding concerns were recorded and actions taken to reduce the risk of recurrence. A staff member said, “Service users and staff are very safe at all times.” People who were able, said they felt safe, and this was confirmed by their families. One family member said, “I can’t fault them, we have no worries. They are happy there, and I don’t think they could live in a better place.”

The provider worked with people and their relatives 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. Care records contained risk assessments, including supporting positive risk taking, to ensure people could continue living a fulfilling life. Positive behavioural support (PBS) plans were in place and had been recently reviewed. This meant staff had the tools to help them support people safely. A staff member told us that staff did not always follow PBS plans. The provider took action to address this.

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

Regular checks of equipment and the environment took place. Documentation was in place to support this. Fire risk assessments were in place and regularly reviewed. People had emergency evacuation plans to support evacuation from the service in the event of a fire or other emergency.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. A relative said, “There are recognised staff, so throughput must be low. The staff are really friendly, respectful, absolutely they were lovely.”

Some staff indicated staffing rotas were an issue for them, in as much as they were not received in a timely manner or changes were made without them being notified. There was a rostering system in place and the management team were aware of the problems and were working to improve procedures.

Staff completed appropriate training as deemed mandatory by the provider. We noted some enhancements to International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) training was required for some staff. IDDSI is an international set of descriptors describing texture modified foods and thickened liquids for people with eating, drinking and swallowing problems. The provider responded immediately to address this and source additional training to support staff.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed. This included requesting references, and having a Disclosure and Barring Service check completed before new staff started working at the service.

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. People’s homes were kept clean and tidy by trained staff.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. There had been no impact on people, but during feedback we made the management team aware of some areas which could be enhanced. This included ensuring ‘as required’ medicines procedures were fully documented as some were missing. This was completed and evidence provided to confirm the provider had taken action.

Any medicines incidents were appropriately reported and investigated, so measures could be put in place to prevent a recurrence, and learning could be shared.