Faith Home 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 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.

Openness and transparency about safety was actively encouraged and embedded in the service. There was an established process of learning from events that had put people at risk of harm or actual harm. This supported continuous improvement and helped ensure people were protected from avoidable harm.

Staff understood their responsibility to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses: they were fully supported when they did so. Accident and incident records were completed, reviewed and scrutinised by the management team. When identified, lessons learned were discussed and communicated with staff at team meetings. The team were proactive in sharing good practice to staff to prevent re-occurrence of incidents, to promote safety and enhance the quality of care provided.

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.

Before care was provided, people met with a member of the office team for an initial assessment. The registered manager reviewed all assessments and care plans to ensure essential information about each person’s health, care needs and preferences had been obtained, and to confirm the service could safely meet their needs.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of coordinated and safe care pathways. Where required, the office team made timely referrals and worked with other healthcare professionals to ensure people’s needs were consistently met.

The electronic care records system enabled staff to access up‑to‑date information and respond to any changes in people’s assessed needs promptly.

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 had established effective safeguarding systems, policies and procedures. There was a consistent approach to safeguarding, and matters were managed in an open and transparent way. When investigations were required, they were detailed and thorough, and any necessary actions to keep people safe were implemented.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and those we spoke with understood their responsibility to raise safeguarding concerns. They demonstrated clear knowledge of how and where to report concerns and told us they felt confident management would listen and take action.

People and their relatives told us they felt supported by staff and felt safe. One person said, “My loved one feels very safe in the hands of the carers as they know them well.”

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, including risks relating to mobility and skin integrity. These were assessed before people began using the service and individual risk assessments were developed. Records showed these were reviewed regularly and updated when people’s needs changed.

People and their relatives told us that staff understood their needs and managed risks to their safety. One person told us, “I have restricted mobility and have 2 calls a day with 2 carers, there are always 2 carers, they provide personal care and help me to mobilise from the bed to the chair by use of the stand aid. I feel totally confident in their abilities they know what they are doing and I couldn’t ask for better staff.”

The provider supported people to live safely in their own homes. People’s assessments included home safety assessments which identified any environmental risks and outlines the actions needed by staff to maintain a safe care environment. When people used equipment, there was a system in place to make sure that this was serviced, checked and safe for use.

Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns about people’s home environments, and there was a process in place to ensure staff could always contact somebody in an emergency.

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.

Staff were recruited safely and pre-employment checks were completed, including Disclosure and Barring service (DBS) checks and verification of identity and employment history. 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 had received relevant training to their roles, this included training that met the requirements for supporting people with a learning disability or autistic people, in line with current standards.

Staff told us they felt supported and received regular training and supervision. One staff member told us; “I’ve had lots of training, online and face to face, since joining and I talk with my manager often.”

The provider effectively assessed and managed infection risks. Policies and procedures reflected current guidance for staff to follow. Staff completed relevant infection prevention and control training, and competency assessments were undertaken. Staff were provided with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gloves and aprons.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

The provider used an electronic medicines administration record (EMAR) system designed to support real time monitoring. However, we found discrepancies between recordings on the EMAR and care plans. For example, 1 person’s care plan and risk assessment stated they self-administered medication, however a medication administration record (MAR) was completed stating that medication had been prompted and administered. Whilst EMAR records were being audited by staff the system had failed to identify this.

Guidance was in place to guide staff on how and when to administer ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines. However, records reviewed showed staff administering PRN medication were not clearly detailing on EMAR why it had been administered. This meant it could not be monitored effectively, and people may not receive their medicines to good effect.

Despite our findings we found no harm to people, and staff had received relevant training with competency checks in place.