GoodOaks Homecare - Isle of Wight

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

This service scored 75 (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. Strong governance and regular quality monitoring meant incidents, safeguarding concerns, complaints and compliments were logged, promptly reviewed and used to update care plans, risk assessments and service improvement plans. Staff told us managers used errors as learning opportunities and provided retraining when needed. Family members said the registered manager responded promptly to situations, and staff confirmed they could raise issues at any time and felt listened to. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

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. Assessments were completed face to face and involved people, family members and external health or social care professionals. Preservice assessments were detailed and led to person centred care plans and risk assessments, with structured review cycles and service monitoring visits.

People and families described smooth transitions into the service, and the provider shared information and discharge packs when people moved to alternative services such as hospital or residential care services. There was evidence of prompt response to changes, for example arranging an urgent live-in package and adjusting visits to support hospital discharge and end of life care.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and acted appropriately to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. A complex safeguarding case showed the provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately and worked with multi‑agency professionals leading to best interest decisions and safer care. The registered manager demonstrated awareness of legal safeguards and was clear about community Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards and the steps required should an application become necessary. These are specific safeguards for people living in their own homes who may be unable to understand and consent to their care.

Staff were trained in safeguarding and described how they would recognise and report concerns. People told us they felt safe and family members consistently told us they felt their relatives were safe when receiving care.

The provider worked with people 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. People and families were actively involved in assessments, care planning and reviews, and they said they were kept informed when needs changed. Family members confirmed they had contributed to risk management, including decisions about equipment, medicines, end of life wishes and visit timings, and felt listened to by the registered manager. There were processes in place to enable care staff to escalated concerns or new needs. Staff used an electronic records app to record for example, changes in health, skin condition, food and drink, which helped families and office staff monitor risk and agree actions.

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 risks in people’s homes were assessed and documented, including access, lighting, pets, fire safety, the use of equipment to support people to move and pressure relieving equipment. The provider ensured any equipment was in place and maintained and understood with regard to how to access any required equipment.

Staff received training to use equipment and were assessed as competent prior to working with people. The office base was a serviced building with secure storage and equipment checks.

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 families reported good continuity of care staff, reliable visit times and staff who stayed for the full length of calls, even during adverse weather and travel conditions.

Staff told us training, induction and ongoing support was good, and external professionals felt staff had the skills to support complex packages. Staff files showed training was up to date. A care staff member told us, “Training is very good, we also get specialist training, we are all put on training.”

Recruitment processes were mostly robust. The provider took prompt action to make improvements we identified as needed to ensure full employment histories and evidence of good conduct in previous work with vulnerable people was obtained.

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. Care staff had access to and used personal protective equipment [PPE] consistently and had completed food hygiene and infection control training. Family members confirmed gloves and aprons were always worn, and staff followed hygiene practices during meal preparation, personal care and household tasks.

The provider monitored infections, linking findings to audits, risk assessments and care plan updates, and ensured PPE supplies were available. Staff described spot checks and ongoing training that reinforced safe practice.

The provider made sure medicines were managed safely, with staff completing medicines training and competency assessments before administering medicines. Care plans outlined the purpose and risks associated with medicines, and weekly audits identified issues and led to prompt retraining or adjustments. Family members said they had no concerns about medication support, and external professionals confirmed the provider responded quickly to changes such as new prescriptions. Audits showed occasional stock issues such as out-of-stock creams and delayed supply of a regular medicine, which the provider had addressed promptly through ordering processes and further oversight.