Highlea Care 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.

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.

Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to identify and embed good practice, which were shared between staff at regular meetings.

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. Staff worked effectively with healthcare partners to ensure people had safe systems of care.

People were safeguarded from abuse. The provider had produced an accessible policy for people on how to protect themselves from harassment and abuse. Staff received safeguarding training, and staff said they would not hesitate to report any concerns they had. A relative told us, “I’ve no concerns.”

Risks to people were managed to reduce the chances of harm occurring. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People were encouraged to take managed risks to maintain their independence. A person had been supported to do more of their housework themselves in order to have more control over their life.

The provider monitored potential risks in the care environment. Where risks had arisen that were outside of the provider’s control they had escalated these for action to the relevant agencies.

There were occasions when the number of staff working was not enough to ensure people received timely support. Many of the people staff were supporting required 2 staff members to assist them with personal care. Some of those people lived in services where only 2 staff were deployed. This meant where those people were being supported there were no staff available to help other people. Occasionally staffing dropped to 1 member of staff. Other staff were available on the telephone and could be deployed to the service, but leaders recognised there would be a delay in doing this.

Staff gave us mixed feedback on staffing levels, with some saying they were sufficient but others saying people were sometimes unable to do what they wanted to due to staffing pressures. The registered manager and provider were aware of staffing pressures and were working with healthcare partners to try and address them.

Staff also gave us mixed feedback on the support they received through supervisions and appraisals. Although these were regularly carried out, some were overdue. The registered manager scheduled in meetings with the effected staff. Regular training was taking placed to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills needed for their roles. New staff were safely recruited into the service.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Infection prevention and control policies were in place and staff received training in this area.

Medicines were managed safely. At the time of our visit nobody was managing their own medicines, but this had happened in the past and was encouraged where it could be done safely. Relatives we spoke with did not raise any concerns about medicines management.