Smart Home Visits 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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. For example, the service reviewed a person’s history of falls and made referrals to relevant professionals to reduce the risk of further falls. The service also used the, ‘You said, we did’ initiative to respond to a person’s needs by improving safe mobilising techniques. This had a positive impact on the person, helping them to mobilise more safely and reducing risk to their wellbeing. Staff used learning from people’s experiences to improve the quality and safety of care.

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. Initial assessments were comprehensive and identified people’s needs, risks and preferences. Care plans reflected these needs and provided relevant information for staff and professionals involved in people’s care. This meant important information could be shared when people required a referral to an external professional or admission to hospital, supporting safe and effective transitions.

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. There were no safeguarding concerns raised at the time of the assessment. However, the service had detailed safeguarding policies and procedures, with clear guidance on the actions staff should take if a concern was identified. Staff received safeguarding training to help them recognise and respond to potential abuse or neglect. A person told us, “I feel very safe with the care.” People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA.

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. We found people were involved in managing risks in a person-centred way. Care plans were detailed and reflected people’s individual needs, risk and preferences, with clear guidance on how risks should be managed. Information focused on people’s goals and what mattered most to them. This supported staff to understand people as individuals and provide care in line with their wishes, while helping people maintain their independence and stay safe.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. People's fire safety risks had been assessed as part of the initial assessment process; however, these risks were not consistently reflected within their care plans. During the assessment, it was identified that risks within people's home environments, including fire safety risks, required clearer documentation within care records to support staff in responding safely and appropriately during an emergency. The management team took prompt action to address this and updated care records to ensure identified risks were clearly documented and available to staff.

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. There were sufficient staff available to ensure people received safe and timely care. Staff were recruited safely with appropriate pre-employment checks completed. Staff received training relevant to their roles, with competency checks completed to ensure they had the skills and knowledge needed to provide care safely in practice. Staff received regular supervision and felt well supported by their managers. A staff member told us, “Yes, my manager listens to any concerns and provides advice and encouragement. I also have annual performance appraisal, where my training needs are reviewed.”

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 told us staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) and followed good infection prevention control (IPC) practices. Staff told us they had access to sufficient PPE and received training in IPC, including hand hygiene, safe disposal of clinical waste and managing infection outbreaks. This supported staff to follow safe practices and reduce the risk of infection for people and staff.

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. People told us they received their medicines on time and felt staff were competent when administering medicines. Staff demonstrated knowledge of how to identify and report medicine errors and the actions required to reduce risks. Managers completed medicine competency checks regularly to ensure staff continued to have the skills and knowledge needed to administer medicines safely. This helped promote safe and timely medicines administration and reduced the risk of harm to people.