Favoured Health Care CIC

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 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 had systems in place to record any incidents and accidents. These included recording these on the daily care notes.

The provider had systems in place to review any incidents that took place. The registered manager told us that care workers verbally informed the office of any incidents and also recorded these in the daily records which were reviewed periodically. The providers quality assurance checks included a review of any incidents and accidents that took place.

The registered managers used monthly staff meetings as an opportunity for learning for staff, providing feedback on any issues that needed addressing.

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.

The provider worked with local authority commissioners to ensure that any referrals received were reviewed and assessed in a timely manner.

Before people began to use the service, the provider requested information about people’s individual support needs, including any risk to be aware of. This information was used to ensure that people’s care needs could be met and used to develop care plans for them, ensuring they received safe and appropriate care.

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.

People using the service told us the service was safe. They said, “She make me safe” “Safe enough, I suppose” and “personally I have no problems with them, they are polite and friendly, and I think we are very lucky to be in safe hands.”

Managers and staff understood how to safeguard people. One care worker said, “Safeguarding is preventing harm or abuse to clients.” The registered manager confirmed that there had been no safeguarding activity in the service.

Training records that staff received safeguarding training every year which helped them to be aware of what safeguarding was and how to report any concerns.

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 using the service told us that care workers supported them to remain as safe as possible.

People had individual risk assessments in place which clearly laid out any high areas of support that people needed, for example in terms of their mobility or personal care needs. These were reviewed every month, ensuring they were up to date and reflected people’s current needs. They included ways in which staff could minimise risk.

Care workers were aware of the risk that people they supported were faced with and were able to tell us how they kept people safe. One care worker said, “I have to assist [person] with personal care, we have to be careful and keep her safe from falling. She has poor mobility and uses a frame. We make sure she has it close to her, and we support her when she moves around.”

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

Environmental risk assessments were completed, these included details about any environmental risk such as floor space, lighting, windows and trip hazards needed to keep the environment as safe as possible. These were reviewed every month.

The registered manager told us, “We see people’s homes to see if they have all the necessary equipment, we do a full assessment for the building.”

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 files contained evidence of robust recruitment checks including application forms, reference checks, right to work eligibility and identity checks. The provider completed Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. This helps employers make safer recruitment decisions by processing requests for criminal record checks. Application forms were ‘values based’ and applicants were asked about their motivation for the role. This helped the provider to recruit people who were a good fit for the company.

Newly employed staff were subject to a probationary review, and records showed staff received an induction to their role which included mandatory training. This was refreshed every year which helped to ensure they could meet the needs of people using the service. People that demonstrated a commitment to working for the provider and had been employed for an extended period of time were supported to obtain the Care Certificate. The Care Certificate standards define the knowledge, skills and behaviours expected of specific job roles in health and social care.

Staff had the opportunity to discuss work related issues during individual supervision meetings which took place every quarter, alongside monthly staff meetings and annual appraisals.

Care workers told us they were well supported through regular training and supervision.

People told us that time keeping was generally good, “She never late”, “He arrives on time”, “I don’t think they’ve ever missed a visit- even on Christmas day” and “They are generally on time, but of course it does depend on public transport, but generally, they are pretty good.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

Staff knew the processes to follow to minimise the risk and spread of infection. Training records showed staff had received training in Infection Prevention and Control which was refreshed every year.

Staff told us they were given adequate supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to help them reduce infection. One care worker said, “[The registered manager] delivers boxes of gloves and masks to us.”

There was an infection control policy which the provider used to underpin its approach to infection control.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People told us that staff supported them to take their medicines.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of medicines management, including consent and administering medicines that were needed ‘as required.’ Medication records were in date and signed by staff.

Records showed that staff received medicines training. However, the provider did not routinely carry out medicine competency checks. There had been no impact to people as a result of this. We raised this with the registered manager who assured us they would implement this immediately as part of their spot check observations. We were assured by this response.