Woodfield 24 Care Services

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 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. Concerns about safety were listened to and the registered managers investigated and reported safety events. Incident reports were analysed to identify trends and themes. Managers shared lessons learnt with staff to improve safety and minimise the risk of future incidents. People knew how to raise concerns, and they spoke positively about how staff and leaders listened to them.

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. The provider shared information and updates with other health professionals when required to support people’s changing needs.

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 worked with people and those important to them to understand what being safe meant to them and how to best support people to stay safe whilst maintaining their independence. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff had received safeguarding training and were knowledgeable about how to spot the signs of abuse and how to report concerns to the relevant authorities.

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 had individual risk assessments in place and their care plans detailed actions to be taken.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Staff knew how to undertake safety checks in people’s homes and were trained to use equipment.

Staff were recruited safely, with appropriate checks in place, and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs without unnecessary delays or rushed care.

Staff recruitment processes were robust and individual staff circumstances were considered and took into account their wellbeing and employment needs. The management team had excellent systems in place, to not only make sure there was safe recruitment for people but also that staff were safe in their roles.

Staff received regular training and supervision to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people effectively. Staff said they had the right skills to do their role, and additional training requests were considered when staff suggested them.

There had been a staff shortage that put pressure on the service, leading to inconsistent visit times and a lack of continuity in care. Some staff said it had been difficult, and 1 person described the carers as excellent but found it frustrating to explain things repeatedly due to frequent changes. Despite this, there were enough staff to meet people’s individual needs, and the registered manager was actively recruiting to address the issue. Some relatives reported no problems with call times or staff consistency and described the carers as excellent.

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. There were infection control policies in place and staff received training in infection prevention and control (IPC). Staff received regular supervision and spot checks which covered IPC practices. People told us staff maintained good hand hygiene and wore gloves and aprons.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Staff did not routinely administer medicines but had received relevant training and had their competency to continue managing medicines safely.