Coastal Homecare (Hove) 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 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.

Staff had reported accidents and incidents appropriately and spoke of confidence that these were suitably followed up. The registered manager and office staff had good oversight of these and regularly analysed them to highlight any patterns and trends. Action was then taken to improve practice and learn from matters going forward. Staff had regular spot checks, supervisions and meetings where learning and development were explored and shared.

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.

People and their relatives all spoke of a smooth process when beginning their care. One relative said, “[Staff] discussed all [person’s] care needs when we started. They came out and were well organised, and it was comprehensive. [Staff] discussed all care needs with me, and we have a folder.”

The registered manager worked effectively with local authorities, hospital discharge teams and health professionals, sharing timely and relevant information to support safe, coordinated care and reduce the risk of delays or gaps in support. Care plans were electronic ‘live’ documents so any changes could be updated immediately. Staff told us that office staff were receptive to their feedback about people and acted straight away if further support was needed.

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.

People told us they felt safe with staff and knew how to raise concerns should they have any. One person said, “100% I feel safe, [staff member] is wonderful.”

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of safeguarding responsibilities and recognised signs of abuse and neglect. Any concerns were reported promptly in line with policy and action taken to remedy these and minimise recurrence. A staff member told us, “I would report anything immediately; there is always someone to contact. Yes, things are followed up.” Safeguarding was regularly discussed in training and meetings. The registered manager kept a log of safeguarding matters. These were appropriately sent to the local authority and CQC. There was good oversight to monitor for patterns and trends, and measures were taken promptly to address issues.

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 had been robustly assessed and action taken to reduce these. For example, risk around moving and handling, falls, skin integrity, swallowing and medication had all been considered. These were clearly recorded and regularly reviewed by office staff. Staff were provided with guidance to manage these safely. People told us they were involved in managing their own risks where appropriate, and relatives confirmed their loved ones were safe.

Care plans included clear instructions, and staff told us they followed these carefully to reduce risks. For example, where a person was at risk of developing sore skin, staff supported them to reposition and applied creams as necessary. Records and staff feedback showed people’s choices were respected, with risks explained and decisions clearly recorded.

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

People’s homes had been assessed for environmental risks, and measures had been put in place to minimise these. For example, fire safety measures and infection control prevention. People who were at risk of falls had additional reminders to ensure walkways were free from hazards which could be tripped over.

Staff supported people to keep their homes clean and tidy in line with their wishes. People told us that staff respected their environment and supported them to remain as independent as possible. For example, encouraging laundry tasks. One person said, “It’s always done and left the way I want it.”

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.

Most people and relatives told us staff were reliable, arrived on time and stayed for the expected duration of visits. One person said, “[Staff member] is always on time and stays the right amount of time and sometimes stays longer if there is a problem.” Another told us, “They are great and communicate if there are any problems with time keeping. I never feel rushed which I am happy with.” Staff confirmed they generally had enough time to deliver care and safely travel between calls without rushing.

There was a robust induction which staff confirmed prepared them for their caring role. This was followed by regular training, supervision and competency checks to ensure practice remained up to date and safe.

Recruitment checks were robust, and there was a flexible proactive approach to support staff retention. The agency had a strong working relationship with the local job centres to proactively recruit. They also shared knowledge of staff availability with other services to prevent losing staff who were ready to start working.

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 and relatives told us staff followed appropriate hygiene practices and used personal protective equipment (PPE) when required. Comments included, “They always use PPE and keep a stock of it here,” and, “[Staff] are always very meticulous, clean and tidy.”

Staff had received training in infection control and demonstrated a clear understanding of the policy and procedures. We saw staff coming by the office to collect PPE, and they told us this was readily available. The correct use of PPE and infection control practices were monitored during regular spot checks.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Systems were in place which supported safe practice around medicines. Staff received suitable training, and the provider had a clear medicines policy in place. Spot checks were regularly completed to ensure staff knowledge was up to date and to promote safety. One staff member told us, “[Office staff] are always out checking in with us. When I started, everything had to be signed off to say I was ok to do it by myself, medicines included.” These arrangements reduced the risk of medicines errors and supported consistent, safe practice.

Electronic medication administration records (eMARs) were used by staff to accurately record administration. Regular medicines audits were completed to identify issues and ensure appropriate action was taken. Care records, including ‘as required’ (PRN) medicine protocols, contained personalised guidance to support consistent practice, such as how someone would demonstrate they are in pain.

People who were supported with their medicines told us staff did this reliably. One person said, “[Staff] deal with my medication and this is done very efficiently.”