Sorted Healthcare Hampshire

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 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 and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. People and their relatives told us that when they raised any issues with the registered manager, learning was undertaken, and staff were supported to adjust the way they cared for people to better meet their needs. Staff told us, when people’s needs changed, their care was promptly reviewed to provide safer and more effective support, for example, when people’s mobility declined. The registered manager recently reviewed and improved medicines recording systems, and regularly reviewed people’s individual care arrangements to promptly respond to any changing risks.

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. A professional working with the service commented, “When I contact [the service] to re-start care packages, this is always completed in a professional and supportive manner.” Staff could clearly explain what actions they took when people had an accident, needed emergency services assistance or when they just started using the service. The registered manager responded promptly and worked well with partners to provide coordinated care to people when needed to protect them from harm.

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. A relative said, “I believe [person] is safe” and explained this was because of support they have been receiving from staff, “The care [that staff] give is very good. They give me a lot of comfort (that the person is supported well).” Another relative echoed this, “[The person] is 100% safe with [staff].”

Staff received safeguarding training and knew how to report any safeguarding concerns. A staff member said, “If we are concerned about anything to do with safeguarding, we report it straightaway.” The registered manager took prompt actions when safeguarding concerns were raised with them which protected people using their service.

People received safe support and care which addressed their individual risks and needs. However, some risk management records were not always fully up to date and some details around specific risks were missing from people’s care plans. For example, when people lived with dementia or had specific behavioural support needs. Other individual risks, which staff supported people with were not always adequately addressed to provide full guidance for staff on what concerning symptoms to observe for, and how to respond. The registered manager responded promptly to our feedback and updated people’s care records. The service was also in the process of reviewing people’s individual care documentation as part of implementation of an electronic care planning system. This already enabled the registered manager to improve on the quality and detail of the specific risk assessments people required. Although this work had not been yet completed at the time of the assessment, people’s care was not adversely affected by the gaps in recording. Staff knew people’s individual needs and any changes in people’s risks were promptly acted on. Hence, risks to people were mitigated and people were not at increased risk of avoidable harm due to this service improvement need. People’s relatives confirmed this. Their comments included, “I remember an incident (when person had a particular health issue) and [staff] notified me straight away”, “[Staff] are good in spotting changes in needs”, and “[Staff] know how to provide care. I am happy with them in general.” A relative explained how staff took all complex medical needs of the person ‘very seriously’ and how they, for example, regularly encouraged the person to eat. They commented the care provided had “huge positive impact on [person’s] wellbeing.” Staff told us they would report to the registered manager if people’s needs changed and that individual care would be immediately reviewed. Staff could describe what actions were taken by the registered manager if people’s risks changed, for example, around risk of falls, mobility, nutrition and hydration.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Staff told us they received training and support to keep safe at work. The registered manager completed regular reviews of individual and environmental risks which could affect care provision. The registered manager had plans in place to manage any business continuity risks and work well with partners if the service was affected by any unforeseen issues and emergencies.

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. People and their relatives told us they received care as planned, could choose a gender of the staff supporting them and staff provided adequate time for support not to be rushed. They found staff to be competent. Relatives told us, “They [carers] come as near the time agreed as possible”, “Yes, they are competent for their roles. The senior carer showed them how to use the hoist (transfer equipment) safely (before staff started supporting the person on their own)”, “[Person] has 2 primary carers who are fantastic and tend to be the ones that come in”, “[Staff] give full time and are pretty consistent, often familiar ones visit.” Staff told us the registered manager frequently visited to observe how they delivered care to people and to provide any support staff needed. They also commented their rosters were manageable with enough time provided for care and travel in between visits. Staff received regular supervisions and training. New staff were recruited safely and supported well before working on their own.

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 and their relatives were happy with staff practice in infection prevention and control. Staff told us they had access to personal protective equipment, training in infection prevention and control and stressed the importance of good hygiene when providing care. There were appropriate policies and systems in place to ensure staff protected people and themselves from spread of infections.

People received good, timely support with their medicines when needed. A relative explained how staff managed complex medicines well which was particularly important for the person to remain well and comfortable. They commented, “[Staff] are quite rigorous about medicines and when [person] needs to take it. They are competent to support with medicines and take it seriously. They are diligent enough to keep on top of that. There are no issues with medicines.” Staff told us they received training in medicines administration and their competency to support people with their medicines was assessed. However, not all medicines administration records were completed by staff in line with the provider’s medicines administration policy, and the recording systems they implemented recently in response to professional’s feedback. Although improvements in recording were noted since May 2025, the good practice was not yet fully embedded as the system was quite new. The registered manager implemented regular medicines records audits, medicines stock checks and re-training and supervision for staff when needed to address this. Staff also recorded support provided with medicines in people’s daily care records. Recording medicines administration was regularly discussed during staff meetings. We did not find evidence people would be harmed or at increased risk of harm due to these shortfalls in recording. However, medicines recording practices in the service were still not fully in line with the national best practice guidance on supporting people living in the community and provider’s systems. The registered manager explained they were implementing a new system for recording medicines administration which would enable them to act on any discrepancies and gaps in ‘real time’ to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed, and to flag up any potential risks more robustly. The registered manager also provided evidence of immediate actions taken following the site visit to address the recording issue.