The Pines Home Care

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 remained 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 safety culture, 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.

Staff were open and honest with people and those close to them in the event of accidents and other untoward incidents. Support workers recorded these and managers investigated, ensuring anything necessary for people’s safety and well-being had been done. The registered manager reviewed incident logs at least monthly, to identify any emerging themes that might mean further changes were needed to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Managers shared learning with staff as needed.

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 when people moved between different services.

When people moved between services, this went smoothly. Staff worked collaboratively with people, their families, commissioners and staff from other health and social care services, to ensure safety and continuity of care and support. People described their good experiences of moving into their accommodation and getting to know staff. Staff told us how this had been managed in a planned, gradual way.

People accessed multiple services such as hospital care, primary healthcare and social care provision. Staff ensured everyone involved had the information necessary to provide safe and effective care and support. This included discussing with a hospital consultant the safe management of someone’s potentially dangerous long-term health condition. As there was a possibility the person might in future need a specialist medicine, the registered manager had arranged the training staff would need to be able to administer this.

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.

The provider’s processes and practices protected people from abuse, neglect and discrimination. This supported people to feel safe. Everyone we spoke with told us staff were kind. Staff worked with people to help them understand what safeguarding meant, including in the context of romantic and intimate relationships. A member of staff told us they felt supported and reassured by the regular checks their manager made to ensure people’s safety, such as reviews of financial record keeping and medicines administration.

Appropriately trained staff were able to recognise signs of abuse and improper treatment. They knew how to report this. Managers took timely and appropriate action to safeguard people when they received such reports.

The management team recognised potential deprivations of liberty and sought appropriate authorisation for this.

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.

The provider’s balanced and proportionate approach to risk enabled people to live active, fulfilling lives. Staff respected people’s rights and choices about how they lived, and how their care and support fitted with this. Staff had a good understanding of support plans that reflected identified risks and how to manage these in a way that was acceptable to people.

Any restrictions on people’s freedom and choice were the minimum necessary for their safety. This was by agreement with people, or in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 where people did not have the mental capacity to consent to the restrictions. Support plans enabled staff to recognise when people were communicating unmet needs or distress and to respond in the way they needed.

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

People’s home environments were comfortable, safe and suitable for their needs. People told us they were pleased with their homes and that they liked having plenty of space. The provider completed environmental assessments of people’s homes, balancing individuals’ right to live as they chose with staff’s safety. When people’s mobility needs changed, staff supported people to work with their landlords and occupational therapists to ensure adaptations were made to people’s living environment. This enabled people to continue living safely in their homes when their needs changed.

The provider recognised when people might benefit from specialist equipment, such as mobility aids, for their comfort and safety. They liaised with people’s occupational therapists to obtain suitable equipment and instructions for its safe use. This was reflected in people’s support plans.

Staff could describe the precautions they needed to take to maintain a safe environment when delivering people’s care, including checking equipment to ensure it remained safe to use. The provider had assessed the risk of fire in all the households and worked with people’s landlords to ensure mitigation was in place.

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 received care from a consistent group of staff that knew them well, had the time to develop positive relationships and spent the agreed time delivering people’s care.

New staff undertook a structured induction, including policy review, shadowing, and performance checks. Staff received ongoing support through training, supervision, team meetings, spot checks, and competency assessments to maintain the required skills and knowledge. Staff told us they received sufficient training and were supported to complete additional qualifications.

Recruitment records contained pre-employment checks, such as enhanced criminal records checks, employment history and references from previous employers. Where an employer did not respond or was no longer contactable, the provider told us they sought alternative evidence of suitability alongside safeguards including structured induction, shadowing, supervision, competency assessments and ongoing performance monitoring before staff worked independently. However, recruitment records did not fully reflect this and did not always include information in relation to staff’s conduct in all previous care roles or note how this risk was mitigated if this information could not be sourced. The provider started taking action to address this shortfall during our inspection.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

Staff followed effective infection prevention and control practices. Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gloves and aprons, when providing personal care.

Staff had received infection control training and showed a good understanding of maintaining hygiene standards and reducing the risk of infection transmission. They could describe the additional precautions they took to support people at increased risk of infection.

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.

The provider had a clear approach to using medicines safely. Staff had initial and refresher training in handling medicines and their competence in this area was assessed annually, or more often if necessary. Medicines administration records (MAR) and supporting documents contained clear instructions for staff about how and when to administer medicines, including PRN medicines (medicines taken when needed) if people needed support with this. Where people needed to swallow their medicines in food, staff obtained advice from a pharmacist about how to do this safely, with the person’s knowledge.

The management team oversaw medicines administration prompts in the provider’s computerised care recording system, to ensure doses were not missed. They also reviewed people’s MAR, which were recorded on paper, to ensure staff completed these correctly, accounting for any missing doses and that PRN medicines were used in line with the person’s guidelines.