Andersen Care Agency

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.

We found improvements and the service was no longer in breach of legal regulation regarding assessing risks and medicines support.

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 knew how to report accidents, incidents and other safety concerns. An incident form completed by staff provided a detailed account of events, actions taken, lessons learned and recommendations to mitigate the risk of recurrence. The provider had implemented a system allowing them to monitor incidents and events affecting the service, and identify themes and patterns.

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.

Management staff liaised with people, their relatives and external agencies, including local authorities’ commissioning teams, and gathered essential information about people’s needs before they started using the service. This enabled staff to understand people’s care and support requirements, preferences and any specific needs, such as communication needs and cultural preferences. This approach helped people to transition smoothly into the service.

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 and their relatives told us they felt safe with the staff team. Staff understood and adhered to safeguarding procedures. They knew the signs of abuse and neglect, and how to report these. A staff member told us, “Safeguarding is to protect people from any risks, harm and abuse.” They explained they would report any concerns through the appropriate management channels or to the council if required.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by considering all aspects of their needs and circumstances. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff understood the risks affecting people and how to minimise them. Risk assessments were personalised, comprehensive and contained step-by-step guidance on how to reduce risks. They covered a range of issues affecting people’s health, care and safety, such as the risk of self-neglect, refusal of care, mobility, diabetes, pressure ulcers and swallowing difficulties.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. They assessed risks within people’s physical environments, including fire safety, while considering their individual needs.

One person was assessed as being at risk of hoarding. Their care plan clearly outlined how the person’s needs and responses presented, and how staff should work with them to ensure their home was safe, including seeking their consent before removing any items.

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.

For some staff members, their recruitment files did not fully evidence their employment history, and gaps were not always explored. The provider advised action had been taken to address this going forward, including increased scrutiny of recruitment procedures. Other pre-employment checks, including DBS checks (police check), references, and identity verification, were completed appropriately.

Staff completed care visits on time, in line with agreed schedules. People and relatives expressed strong satisfaction with the care and support provided by staff. Their comments included, “I have regular call times and also the same group of carers, they are all very nice people and nothing is a trouble to any of them” and “The carers are never late and always come in with smiling faces, even though its 6.15 in the morning.”

Staff received appropriate training regularly and were supported through supervision and appraisals. A person told us, “I do think they [staff] are well trained as there has never been any issues with what they all have to do.” A staff member said, “We do different training every 4 to 5 months.”

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. Staff had access to personal protective equipment and used it appropriately. The provider carried out regular spot checks to ensure good standards of care, including adherence to infection control measures.

Feedback from people and relatives confirmed this. A relative told us, “The care staff wear PPE [Personal Protective Equipment] all of the time.” Staff demonstrated knowledge of infection control practices, including effective handwashing and the use of PPE appropriately.

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

The service carried out comprehensive assessments of people’s medicines, which indicated the level of support required with the management of their medicines. People had detailed and personalised medicines care plan that provided clear information on how they liked to take their medicines, including their capacity to understand any associated risks, a description of each medicine, the dosage, what they are used for and possible side effects.

At the time of the assessment, staff did not administer medicines to people. They prompted and supervised only. Staff received training in medicines management and were assessed as competent to prompt and supervise people with their medicines. They maintained a clear log showing that people had taken their medicines. A person told us, “I take my own tablets but the carers always remind me to take them.” The provider had systems in place to support safe medicine administration should this be required.