Alcedo Care Leeds

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 positive culture of safety where concerns, incidents and safeguarding matters were reported, reviewed and used to drive improvement. Governance systems monitored accidents, incidents, safeguarding concerns, complaints and notifications, with actions identified and lessons learnt recorded. Records demonstrated incidents led to measures such as updated risk assessments, additional staff training, competency checks, supervision and changes to care arrangements where needed. Staff were encouraged to report incidents promptly and to raise concerns through whistleblowing and the provider’s “Speak Out” whistleblowing processes. An analysis of governance records identified themes and trends across incidents, safeguarding and medicines management to help improve safety and reduce the likelihood of recurrence.

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 experienced coordinated care which supported safe transitions and continuity of support. Assessments were completed before care commenced and information was shared between staff, families and relevant professionals to ensure care was delivered safely. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals including GPs, district nurses, social workers, safeguarding teams and multidisciplinary teams when concerns were identified. Quality reviews showed people and relatives found the assessment process straightforward and thorough. 1 family member told us, “I had contact details for 40 services, but all could not meet what I wanted. I contacted Alcedo and they said they could. It has been all straightforward. They were thorough. It was carried out face to face, good.”

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 were protected from the risk of abuse and neglect. Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and records demonstrated concerns were recognised, escalated and reviewed appropriately. Safeguarding matters were monitored through governance systems and linked to notifications and multidisciplinary discussions where required. Staff received safeguarding training and demonstrated knowledge of reporting procedures. People and relatives told us they felt safe with the service. 1 person said, “Yes, I feel safe with them.” A family member told us, “We raised concerns about 1 of the carers. I called the office and they took [them] off straightaway. It was dealt with brilliantly.” The service worked closely with local authorities and partner agencies to manage ongoing safeguarding risks and support positive outcomes.

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 were involved in managing risks to their health, safety and wellbeing. Risk assessments contained detailed guidance for staff and balanced safety with people's rights, choices and independence. Staff supported positive risk-taking and adapted support according to individual needs. Care records demonstrated staff understood risks such as epilepsy, choking, falls, dehydration, mobility needs and self-neglect, and took action to reduce these risks. 1 person's care plan demonstrated a balanced approach to supporting an individual to make unwise decisions while considering the safety of everyone involved. A family member told us, “Staff know [person] is at risk of choking and will watch [them] when [they] are eating.” Staff routinely reviewed risks and escalated concerns when people's needs changed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Systems were in place to help ensure people were supported in safe environments. Environmental risk assessments were completed for people's homes and community settings to identify and mitigate hazards. Staff supported people safely when accessing the community and considered risks associated with mobility, road safety, equipment and infection prevention. Care records contained guidance relating to home safety, mobility support and environmental risks. 1 person told us, “They make sure my home is safe. My tablets are in a locked cupboard.” A family member described how staff supported safe mobility and reduced environmental risks within the home by addressing hazards promptly.

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. People received support from staff who were safely recruited, trained and supported to carry out their roles. Recruitment records demonstrated required pre-employment checks had been completed, including Disclosure and Barring Service checks, references and verification of employment history. Staff completed mandatory training and, where required, additional training to support people with complex health needs such as epilepsy and emergency medicines. Competency assessments, spot checks, supervision and probation monitoring provided assurance staff remained competent to deliver safe care. People and relatives spoke positively about staff knowledge and skills. 1 family member said, “Yes, they are well trained” and described how concerns regarding a piece of specialist equipment led to additional training being provided to staff. Some people reported occasional delays to visits. However, there was evidence staff usually notified people when running late. There was also a call monitoring system in place.

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. The provider had systems to help prevent and control infection. Staff completed infection prevention and control training and risk assessments were used to support people with specific infection risks. Spot checks and competency assessments included infection prevention and control (IPC) practices and confirmed appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). People and relatives consistently reported staff followed good infection control procedures. 1 family member told us, “Staff always wear gloves during personal care” and another said, “[Staff] wear gloves.” Infection prevention and control assessments were in place and people told us staff wore appropriate PPE.

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 to support safe medicines management. The service had a comprehensive medicines policy, medication audits, competency assessments and electronic medication recording systems. Staff received medicines training and competency assessments before administering medicines, and records showed medicine changes and incidents were generally documented and reviewed. People told us they received support with medicines when required and staff demonstrated a good understanding of medication-related risks.