Neways at Home Weymouth

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.

Accidents and incidents were recorded on the electronic care record and in an accident book. All were reviewed and themes and trends noted and shared.

The care record had a message board accessed by staff. Urgent messages about people such as learning from adverse incidents could be shared using the message board with information either available to all staff or just to those most involved with the concern.

Regular team meetings also provided a forum to share learning and good practice.

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 ensured people were supported to receive appropriate health care as needed. Should staff be concerned about people they would inform service management who would contact relevant healthcare professionals. Staff also worked alongside community nurses and hospice staff to support people when they were at the end of life. Additional record keeping of interactions with healthcare professionals was needed to maintain a complete and contemporaneous record. Since our inspection, the registered manager had begun to use emails to follow up phone calls to healthcare professionals so decisions and actions were confirmed in writing, providing a more robust record.

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.

Staff members completed safeguarding training as part of their annual mandatory training. Possible abuse was recognised and alerted to service management who made appropriate referrals to the local authority safeguarding team. There was good awareness of possible types of abuse people may experience including more recently recognised categories of abuse. For example, they had noticed ‘cuckooing’ this is modern slavery and is a form of exploitation.
Investigations were completed into safeguarding concerns. These were clearly recorded and showed the provider had acted to safeguard people and prevent possible future occurrences.

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 had been assessed and steps to mitigate risks taken. These were completed in partnership with people whenever possible to ensure they understood what steps to take to minimise risks and maintain their independence.
Risk assessments did not prevent people from participating in fulfilling lives but enabled people to participate more safely. A range of risk assessments were completed and regularly updated including falls, personal care and use of paraffin based emollients. Changes to the person or the risks were noted and reassessed as needed and residual risks minimised as far as possible.
We asked people and their relatives if they felt the care delivered by Neways Care at Home was safe. They told us, “Absolutely. We’re very happy and they are very good at their jobs.” A person’s relative echoed this sentiment saying, “I feel very, very safe. It’s a fantastic agency – no problems whatsoever a lovely firm."

The provider was fully aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider completed risk assessments of people’s homes and ensured people and staff were safe. When people were assessed, if in their home rather than elsewhere such as hospital, the registered manager would note the locations of utilities such as the gas main shut off, the water stop cock and the electricity panel and trip switches. This ensured in an emergency such as an unexplained smell of gas, staff could act to ensure they and people were safe. Other potential safety issues such as flooring, trip hazards, whether the person hoarded items, safety outside, lighting and if the location was safe for staff to attend in the dark were risk assessed.
All known risks were assessed and mitigated as far as was possible. In addition to assessing risks in individual properties, staff records held an overview home care risk assessment to mitigate generic risks such as risk of harm from people’s pets, supporting people in high crime areas, inclement weather such as ice and snow and driving to people’s homes. All areas had been risk assessed and mitigating actions taken and advice given to staff as to what to do should they encounter any of the risks.

The provider was fully aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider completed risk assessments of people’s homes and ensured people and staff were safe. When people were assessed, if in their home rather than elsewhere such as hospital, the registered manager would note the locations of utilities such as the gas main shut off, the water stop cock and the electricity panel and trip switches. This ensured in an emergency such as an unexplained smell of gas, staff could act to ensure they and people were safe. Other potential safety issues such as flooring, trip hazards, whether the person hoarded items, safety outside, lighting and if the location was safe for staff to attend in the dark were risk assessed.
All known risks were assessed and mitigated as far as was possible. In addition to assessing risks in individual properties, staff records held an overview home care risk assessment to mitigate generic risks such as risk of harm from people’s pets, supporting people in high crime areas, inclement weather such as ice and snow and driving to people’s homes. All areas had been risk assessed and mitigating actions taken and advice given to staff as to what to do should they encounter any of the risks.

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.

Staff completed IPC training during their induction and as a mandatory training course updated annually. Competence in IPC was assessed to ensure staff were working to an acceptable level of hygiene and minimising the risks of cross infection. IPC practice was also reviewed at spot checks of staff which took place around 6 times each year.
Every month, the registered manager completed a stock take of personal protective equipment (PPE) to ensure the supply of gloves, aprons and shoe covers, for example, did not run low.
We asked how staff would work in a home that was not hygienically cleaned, for example if they needed to heat a meal for the person. The registered manager told us they would work with the person to ensure an area was cleaned to ensure safe food handling to enable staff to provide appropriate support.

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.

Medicines were safely managed. Staff completed training and were assessed to be competent before commencing medicines administration, and updated training and competence checks were completed annually.

Medicines administration records (MAR) were audited monthly and relevant care plans were in place. If medicines errors occurred, staff knew what actions to take and where to seek advice. Following medicines errors, the provider had a robust investigation process and improved future practice through learning.

We noted a number of gaps in a person’s MAR. This was due to having no supply of the medicines. The registered manager explained this was an ongoing concern with a pharmacy and GP surgery and they were arranging a meeting with them to address the issues.