Newgencaregroup (Dorset)

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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider established effective systems to learn when things went wrong. There were procedures for dealing with accidents, incidents and complaints. Staff understood these and reported any concerns.

The registered manager investigated all events and completed detailed reports which included learning from these and taking action where improvements were needed. The registered manager ensured staff knew and understood how to make improvements. We reviewed staff supervision records and staff meeting minutes which confirmed this. Discussions about possible scenarios and incidents were documented during individual and group 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.

Assessments were completed before care commenced to ensure people’s needs could be met safely. Information was shared to support continuity when people joined the service or experienced changes to their care needs.

Care plans and systems supported consistency of care delivery, including when different staff supported people. Where people required support from health professionals, staff knew how to escalate concerns promptly and appropriately. These arrangements reduced the risk of gaps in care and ensured people experienced safe and coordinated support.

At the time of our assessment, the provider had not needed to support anyone to attend hospital or use other care services. However, they had procedures to ensure they shared information and provided support when needed. For example, a ‘Quick Access Information Page’ document was completed and readily available for people if they needed hospitalisation.

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.

There were procedures designed to safeguard people from abuse and avoidable harm. Safeguarding training, policies and supervision helped to ensure staff practice remained safe and up to date. Staff understood safeguarding processes and their responsibility to protect people from abuse and neglect.
At the time of our assessment, there had not been any safeguarding concerns. However, the registered manager understood their responsibilities to work with the safeguarding authorities to investigate concerns and ensure people were protected from avoidable harm.

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.

Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were identified. For example, risks associated with people’s mobility, skin integrity and malnutrition. These risks were assessed before people started to use the service and amended as needed. They were discussed with people and their relatives and agreed within risk management plans. Risk assessments were created and maintained within the provider’s electronic recording system, regularly reviewed and were updated when needed. The registered manager carried out spot checks to observe staff and make sure they followed procedures to keep people safe.

Staff told us they were given enough information about people’s risks and how to keep people safe when providing their care. For example, how to support people to reduce the risks they faced when outside of their homes.

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

The service provided support in people’s own homes, they were not responsible for the upkeep of these premises. However, risk assessments were in place to ensure the environments in people’s homes were safe to protect people and staff from harm. For example, there were effective arrangements in place to manage risks associated with fire or slips, trips and falls.

The service made sure staff could always contact them in an emergency. Staff told us,“The managers are available whenever guidance or assistance is needed.”

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 enough staff to ensure people’s needs were met. The provider planned on expanding their business and were actively recruiting new staff. The director told us it was essential they had staff in place before supporting additional people within the service.

Safe recruitment processes were in place.Procedures were in place to ensure the required checks were completed prior to staff commencing their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff support was ongoing and there was a schedule of supervisions and spot checks. Records showed conversations were two-way and detailed. Staff told us they felt supported and received appropriate training and supervisions to enable them to fulfil their roles. Staff had the right mix of skills to make sure that practice was safe, and they were able to respond to unforeseen events.

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 were protected as much as possible from the risk of infection because their home environment and equipment were kept clean and hygienic. They were supported to maintain their own personal hygiene in line with their needs and preferences.
Staff had access to the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) as needed and supplies were plentiful. Policies and procedures regarding preventing the spread of infection and avoidable harm were in place.
Records showed staff had received training and ongoing monitoring for infection prevention and control and the compliance with PPE use.

The provider had a medicines policy and procedures to ensure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. At the time of our assessment staff did not support a person with managing their medicines.

The service used an electronic medication administration record system (eMAR), which was linked to the tasks staff were required to complete during each visit. This meant they were updated as changes were made. Alerts from the system informed the registered manager and office team if a medicine was late, or not given, and corrective action was taken. Monthly medicines audits and checks were undertaken to identify non-compliance or concerns.

Staff were regularly observed and had their competency and knowledge assessed when administering medicines. Staff confirmed they had training, and competency checks to make sure they gave medicines safely. Staff told us they felt supported regarding medicines management. Comments included,“Currently there is no service user I support with medication. I have had training in medication administration both theory and practical, also competency checks are completed before administering medications independently.”