Chinite Home Care Darlington and Northeast

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 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.

The provider kept detailed records of accidents and incidents and reviewed these to identify any patterns or trends. This information was then used to minimise future risk.

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.

A full assessment of people’s needs was undertaken before any new packages of care were started. The provider conducted a face-to-face visit, either at home or in hospital, to ensure they have a good understanding of the person's needs.

The provider worked closely with several external agencies to ensure safe transitions and ongoing support. Wherever possible the same staff visited to provide support to people.

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.

Safeguarding concerns were appropriately investigated and escalated to the local authority and CQC if necessary. A comprehensive safeguarding tracker was used to record incidents. This included lessons learned and actions taken to prevent reoccurrence. Staff had received safeguarding training and were able to demonstrate an understanding of how to put this into practice. A staff member told us, “I feel confident that I could raise any safeguarding concerns if needed and that they would be taken seriously and managed appropriately.”

People’s relatives told us they felt safe. A relative said, “Yes, very (safe), we’ve had to use a few (care providers) …and [Chinite Home Care Darlington and Northeast] have been great.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. Where people receive support in their own homes, this can be done through The Court of Protection which is defined as part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). At the time of our assessment there was nobody being supported who was subject to Court of Protection restrictions.

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 relating to people were assessed and managed appropriately. Risk assessments about care were person-centred, proportionate, and regularly reviewed with the person or their representative. A professional told us, “What I value most about Chinite Home Care is their proactive approach to supporting individuals. They take appropriate action to identify and reduce risks and advocate effectively on behalf of the people they support.”

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

Care was delivered in people’s own homes and therefore the provider was not responsible for the upkeep of the environment. However, to keep people and staff safe, the provider carried out health and safety checks of people’s homes to check for any hazards and put measures in place to reduce any risks.

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.

There were gaps in staff training. The provider assured us they were focused on ensuring all staff training was completed as soon as possible. However, people’s relatives felt confident staff had the knowledge and skills to carry out their role. A relative told us, “All the staff are great, and all seem well trained.”

Staff praised the induction process and ongoing training. A member of staff told us, “The training I have received has been helpful, and I feel it has prepared me to carry out my role safely and effectively. As I continue working with the service, I look forward to building on my knowledge and experience.”

The provider followed safe recruitment processes to ensure they employed the right people for the role. There was a consistent staff team working with people wherever possible and the provider was not using any agency staff.

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 policies to prevent and control infections. Staff were given protective equipment, such as aprons and gloves. They had received infection control training and understood their responsibilities in managing infections.

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

Medicines records were not always completed accurately. Audits had been conducted but had not identified all of the issues we found. For example, the frequency and timing of medicines was not always clearly recorded. There had been no harm to people as a result of this and following our feedback the provider assured us improvements had already been made.