Handley Care Services 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 inspection for this service under supported living services. However, the previous inspection referred to the exact same location and was rated good. 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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People were encouraged and supported to raise safety concerns with the provider. The provider and staff understood the importance of reporting safety concerns and learning lessons when things went wrong.

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 were listened to by the provider’s staff when their initial care plans were being created. This helped ensure people were supported to receive continuity of care when they started receiving care from this service.

The provider had standardised policies and procedures in place to ensure the way they supported people reflected best practice in terms of safe and effective ways of working.
 

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.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe when staff they knew interacted with them. Staff used respectful language when describing people and their care needs. There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. The provider had a safeguarding policy and procedure in place and staff confirmed they received regular safeguarding training.
 

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’s individual risks were regularly assessed and details in care plans included how to support their care and health needs. Staff knew the people they supported well and were aware of the symptoms and cues which might indicate they were becoming unwell or distressed. People’s care plans were regularly reviewed and amended when people’s needs changed. Risks were assessed and people and their families were involved in this process.
 

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

CQC does not directly regulate physical brick-and-mortar premises for supported living schemes (as housing is managed via separate tenancy agreements), inspectors do evaluate how effectively care providers identify environmental risks and follow up on necessary maintenance with the external landlord. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events appropriately.

People’s independence was promoted and risks associated with their environment were assessed and reduced as far as reasonably possible. Work on improvements and repairs was currently underway; some areas of work were uncompleted and some soft furnishing required replacement.
 

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 were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Relatives confirmed, “I have never known them to be short staffed. Very regular carers there”, and “[Name] doesn’t handle change well. New carers shadow the others so they can get used to them.”

The provider had robust and safe recruitment practices in place to make sure all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. The provider had an effective programme of appropriate staff training in place, and staff told us they received the training they needed to support people safely.
 

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.

We found the house suitably organised and clean with no unpleasant odours or equipment in need of repair. There was an effective approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection, which was in line with current relevant national guidance. The provider had an infection prevention and control (IPC) policy and procedure in place, which staff had access to.
 

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were managed safely overall, supported by clinical oversight and involvement from health professionals. However, we did find some liquids and creams which did not have the date of first opening recorded and suggested staff should always record the date of all limited-shelf-life medicines in line with current guidance and good practice. We were assured the provider took active measures to correct this issue.

People were involved in decisions about their medicines, and their prescribed medicines were appropriately administered. The provider carried out regular medicines audits to identify any errors. The provider made sure people’s individual care plans specified exactly what support each person needed from care staff in respect of their prescribed medicines.