Aventus Care 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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Staff told us they felt supported and able to speak up, describing managers as “very approachable” and “always available when I need to talk”. Learning from audits was evident, including medication checks, monthly feedback audits and staff file audits. These identified small administrative issues ,and the provider took steps to address them.

The provider discussed incidents in team meetings and staff were encouraged to request additional training where needed.

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 when needed and all staff knew each person supported by the service.

There were detailed care and support plans in place for other services to understand people’s individual needs. We saw detailed hospital passports which gave important information about people if they needed. We contacted local healthcare providers prior to the inspection, and no concerns had been identified about the care of the people in the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant o 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 and leaders had received training in safeguarding and understood their responsibilities in reporting safeguarding concerns to the appropriate agencies. A staff member told us, “I know

who to contact about any safeguarding concerns and feel confident they would be dealt with.” A county council partner told us they had no concerns regarding the safeguarding of people in the service.

Staff had completed training for safeguarding and whistleblowing, and shared information with the safeguarding authority appropriately. They told us they knew how to recognise potential

signs of abuse and how to report these internally and externally. One member of staff said, “I would report them straight away if I saw something I didn’t think was right.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe,supportiveand enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were now robust and captured people’s strengths and independence. Staff encouraged safe mobility, supported decisions about personal care, and used clear communication strategies where people needed support to express their wishes.

People were involved in decisions about their safety and care planning wherever possible. Care plans showed person-centred practice, with clear descriptions of people’s preferences, routines and what mattered to them. Staff involved families appropriately, particularly where people had reduced capacity or communication needs

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

People received care in their own homes, and the provider had completed environmental risk assessments for each property. These included checks on fire safety equipment, access routes,laundryand any home specific hazards. Staff were familiar with emergency arrangements and knew how to support people to evacuate safely.

Staff usedappropriate equipmentsuch as shower chairs, which were serviced and used in line with training.

Records showed that health and safety checks were consistently completed. We did raise however that improvements could be made by strengthening documentation around the storing of COSHH (control of substances harmful to health). The registered manager (RM) rectified this immediately. We are not aware of any incidents which had occurred as a result oft his.

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.

Recruitment practices were safe and robust. Staff files contained Disclosure and Barring Service [DBS] checks, verified references, interview notes, identity documents and training records. Any gaps in employment had been explored.

People told us staff arrived on time, were reliable and knew them well. Staffing levels met people’s needs, and the provider monitored availability and rota planning. Staff said rotas were fair and they felt supported.

Staff received mandatory and specialist training, including medication, moving and handling, MCA, dementia, and safeguarding. Training compliance was high. Staff received supervision and said they felt valued by management.

There were no agency staff. A relative told us “(relative)usually has the same carers who they get on well with. There is not a high turnover of staff.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and audits we saw supported this.

People and their relatives told us staff followed good infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. One person told us,” They are in a safe and clean environment”.

The provider had IPC policies and procedures in place, and care records included information on what staff should do to reduce the risk of infections spreading. Staff had received IPC training and told us they understood the importance of this.

We observed a good standard of cleanliness in the homes with no odours or signs of poor infection risk.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people and relatives in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were managed safely, and staff followed clear medication policies. Charts were completed accurately, with daily and monthly audits showing strong practice. Where an error occurred, staff reported this immediately and the provider took appropriate action.

People with health needs, e.g. epilepsy, had detailed guidance in place. Medication changes were recorded and communicated appropriately. Staff understood PRN protocols, topical applications and allergy information. PRN is a medical abbreviation meaning "as needed".

We saw that some medication had not been locked away and no risk assessment was in place to evidence that this was not needed. We informed the RM and this was rectified immediately. There was no evidence that anybody had come to any harm due to this error.