Alva Healthcare Ltd

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 regulation in relation to risk management and the ways people’s medicines were managed at the service.
 

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.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Systems were in place to ensure accidents and incidents were analysed and trends and patterns identified to mitigate risks. However, these systems had not been tested as the provider told us there had been no incidents to report. We identified an issue in the staff meeting notes, which related to a piece of equipment used by a person. This was addressed appropriately however, no lessons were documented to ensure practice improved.

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 had access to healthcare professionals as and when required. Staff took their advice to ensure outcomes for people improved.

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 received training in safeguarding people from the risks of abuse. Staff knew what action to take if they suspected abuse and felt they could confide in the registered manager. One support worker said, “I will inform the management team if I suspect abuse. Yes, I am confident that the management team would take action. If they don’t take action l will inform the local authority safeguarding team, call the police or inform the social workers.”

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Systems were in place to ensure accidents and incidents were analysed and trends and patterns identified to mitigate risks. However, these systems had not been tested as the provider told us there had been no incidents to report. We identified an issue in the staff meeting notes, which related to a piece of equipment used by a person. This was addressed appropriately however, no lessons were documented to ensure practice improved.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Environmental risk assessments were carried out prior to care commencing and at regular intervals. These considered risks in relation to things such as lighting, pets and appliances. Equipment used to support people’s care needs had been serviced in line with guidance.

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. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and received training and support to carry out their role well. Staff were recruited safely, and pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure suitable staff were employed. Staff supported people on a ‘live in’ care basis. One support worker said, “Yes, I do have face to face mandatory training NVQ level 2 and 3. I also get support from the management team, professionals, nurses and social workers. I do receive supervision every month and I’m happy with the support I get.”

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. The provider had an infection control policy and procedure which guided staff to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and used this as and when required.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. The provider had policies and procedures in place to guide staff in the safe administration of medicines. However, people did not always receive their medicines as prescribed. For example, 1 person had a medication patch which should be applied once a week, however, the medication administration record indicated this had been changed every day. We spoke with the registered manager who confirmed this was not the case, but agreed the recording required improvement. We also found body map documentation to inform staff where the patch had been applied, and the patch rotation plan did not follow current guidance. This put the person at risk of potential damage to their skin.