Hazelwood Homecare 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 focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. The provider was keen to improve the service and listen to feedback from CQC. They had long term action plans in place to safely expand their services to enable people to have access to good care.

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. For example, a healthcare professional told us staff had quickly escalated a concern for a person they supported to the relevant healthcare team. They said “Without Hazelwood carers escalating concerns we as a team would not be able to assess rapidly and implement care accordingly.”

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. All staff had been trained in safeguarding and told us they knew the correct action to take if they felt someone was being harmed or abused. There was a safeguarding policy and procedure in place which had been discussed with people and staff.

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. For example, people had comprehensive risk assessments in place which focused on what tasks they could do for themselves and what they needed support with. A person’s shower risk assessment described how staff should support them to shower, then leave them to wash themselves independently.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Each person had an environmental risk assessment in place which was completed before the start of their care package which took into account potential risks in their homes. This included trip hazards or fire risks from the use of paraffin based creams

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. Staff were recruited and selected safely, and rotas evidence there was enough staff allocated to people’s care calls. Staff had undergone training and were regularly supervised and people said they saw the same staff which gave them consistency.

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. All of the staff had access to a supply of personal protective equipment [PPE]. People told us staff disposed of waste safely and left their homes clean and tidy.

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. There were robust medicine processes in place, such as competency checks and weekly audits and reviews of medicines administration records to ensure people were receiving their medicine safely and as prescribed. Risk assessments were in place, we did highlight during feedback 1 person did not have a risk assessment in place regarding the effect of alcohol on their medicine. The provider has corrected this.