Daisychain Homecare Services

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 had made improvements to the systems and processes in place to ensure accidents and incidents were regularly analysed by the registered manager to determine if there were any emerging themes to improve the care provided. Learning from incidents was shared with the wider staff team through regular meetings.

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. We found important information was now included in people’s care plans. For example, we found detailed information on how staff should support a person with their catheter, also how staff should safely support people to use equipment that aided their moving and transferring. People also had hospital passports in place which can be used to share important information between services about a person to aid their continuity of care in the event they needed to attend or be admitted to hospital.

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. The provider had made improvements to their systems to manage safeguarding concerns. We found effective systems in place to ensure accidents and incidents were investigated and analysed. The registered manager had taken appropriate action when safeguarding incidents had occurred. This included carrying out their duty in accordance with the duty of candour and reporting to external agencies such as the local safeguarding team. The provider had systems in place to analyse accidents and incidents for any emerging themes. Staff had received safeguarding training and were aware of how to report concerns internally. We found concerns staff had raised had been reviewed and escalated appropriately to external agencies.

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. Following our last inspection, the provider had reviewed and updated people’s care plans and risk assessments. We found risks which affected people's daily lives were documented, and detailed guidance was available for staff to follow. The management team monitored and regularly assessed these risks and took appropriate actions to ensure people received care in a safe and consistent way. People and their relatives confirmed they were involved in managing any risks identified. One person told us, “They appear very competent so far. They have checked for risks or hazards but haven’t found anything amiss”.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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. The provider had made improvements to how people’s visits were organised. People told us they mostly received their visits on time and staff always stayed for their correct duration. Some people felt they were not always informed if a staff member was running late. The provider monitored this through their electronic monitoring systems and audits and worked with people to resolve any issues identified. People told us they felt staff were well trained and competent. One person told us, “We are very happy with their professionalism.” And another person told us, “New carer’s come with a more experienced one.”

The provider had assessed the risk of infection, however people told us this risk was not always managed well. We received mixed feedback from people about how staff used personal protective equipment (PPE). Some people told us staff did not always change their gloves appropriately and sometimes wore the same pair while providing personal care and then preparing food and drinks. We informed the provider so they could address this. Care plans in place for people had been reviewed since our last inspection and staff had access to guidance on how they should manage the risk of infection. For example, we found people’s catheter care plans provided information on the hygiene measures staff should follow or how staff should monitor the person for signs of infection.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.