Age UK Northamptonshire Also known as Age Concern Northamptonshire

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

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. Whilst there had not been any safety incidents, not all staff were aware of whether there had been any or who to discuss these with should they occur. The provider was not proactive in identifying where improvements to the service were needed. People’s relatives felt that complaints were acted upon, however it was not clear from the complaints log what action had been taken in response to complaints received.

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. The Registered Manager had recently supported one person, whose needs the service could no longer meet, to transition to respite whilst awaiting alternative care arrangements. They liaised with the Local Authority to share information about the person’s needs. Recently the service had had to temporarily stop supporting people with personal care. The Registered Manager offered support to people and their families to find alternative support for this period.

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 had received Safeguarding training, and they knew how to support people. They understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and how this related to the care and support they provided. However, people did not have Mental Capacity Assessments recorded where there was reason to suspect their mental capacity may have been impacted by a cognitive impairment. This had minimal impact on the care people received as they were supported by knowledgeable staff who ensured they were supported to make decisions.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People did not have risk assessments in relation to issues that could impact their safety. For example, there were no mobility or medicines self-administration risk assessments in place for someone whose health conditions impacted their mobility and cognitive health. People’s relatives told us that people receiving care were able to make everyday choices about their care and support. The impact on people was low as staff were knowledgeable. They told us how they kept people safe and what actions they would take if someone had a fall.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People’s environments were not assessed for potential risks to them and staff. Whilst people did not need moving and handling equipment, staff told us they had access to the things they needed to support people safely.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support,supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The assessment was triggered because large gaps in required training had been identified. This had been put right by the Registered Manager prior to the inspection but these processes were yet to be embedded. Just prior to the assessment taking place, the majority of staff had received their first supervision sessions for at least six months. Review of staff’s recruitment files identified that one person only had one reference. Team meetings had not been taking place. The first meeting in many months was taking place on the day following the site visit.

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. Staff had had training in Infection Prevention and Control and Hand Hygiene. People’s relatives told us that staff kept the environment clean and that they washed their hands before supporting people with personal care.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Whilst people administered their own medicine, there were no risk assessments in place for this where someone had a cognitive impairment. Staff were instructed to ask people if they needed over the counter pain relief. However, there was no information available to instruct staff on how to do this safely, for example, ensuring a 4 hour gap since the last paracetamol was taken.