Alternative Smart Solutions 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 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. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had a process in place to review any incidents, including unwitnessed falls, to identify lessons learnt to reduce risks to people. This led to timely changes in care plans and risk assessments. Relatives were involved in this learning.

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.

A thorough assessment of people’s needs, wishes and likes was undertaken prior to care starting. Relatives were involved in this process where appropriate. This information was transferred into people’s support plans and risk assessments which supported their care to be person-centred.

Staff were introduced to people before care commenced and there was feedback sought from people and relatives on any improvements to their care. One person told us, “I have had 3 years support now and am happy with the care I receive.”

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 that people felt safe when receiving care. One person told us, “I feel as safe of houses.”

Staff had attended safeguarding training and training in duty of candour. The duty of candour is a general dutyto be open and transparent with people receiving care. It applies at all times, in all cases. The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of local safeguarding procedures. Safeguarding systems were in place to protect people. These systems were discussed in staff supervisions which meant they were clear to staff.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People had individualised risk assessments and these covered multiple areas of their care and support. This meant records could be updated immediately when their risks changed. Records detailed how staff should work to ensure safety in people’s homes. The approach to risk was proportionate to the care that was provided to people.

People and their relatives, where appropriate, were fully involved in any risk assessments that were developed. People were able to take risks to do the things they wanted to.

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

Risks associated with people’s individual environments were assessed. Comprehensive environmental assessments were completed as part of people’s care planning. The registered manager told us they checked and reviewed the environmental assessments regularly. There were individualised personal emergency evacuation plans in place to support people to leave their home safely if required and these were reviewed monthly. Staff had received lone worker training. This supported staff to keep safe when working in the community.

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 was an effective system to ensure people received their support at the agreed time. People told us that staff were on time. One person told us, “I never feel rushed when they are here.” Another told us, “I have a good laugh with him.” People and relatives told us there was continuity to care when there were staff absences and this was by staff they knew.

Relatives told us staff had the knowledge and skills to provide their loved one’s care. One told us, “They know them very well.” Another told us, “Rarely are there times you feel support staff lack understanding of how to keep your family member safe.”

Staff had received sufficient training to support people with meeting their needs.

Staff were recruited safely into the service. This included, gaining references from previous employers, completing a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, and checking right to work status. DBS checks provide information, including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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 received training in infection prevention and control. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was provided for staff. It was agreed with people how and where gloves and aprons were made available in their homes. The registered manager had implemented systems that ensured staff had PPE available to them when it was needed.
 

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 used an electronic medicines administration recording system. This was checked by the registered manager meaning people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff who were responsible for giving people medicines were trained and had their competency assessed and recorded.