Kanssas Home Care Ltd

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 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 reported accidents, incidents and other concerns promptly, which were closely monitored by the management team. Records showed clear and detailed account of each event, including actions taken and lessons learned. The provider ensured learning from other areas, including complaints, was shared and acted upon. We saw evidence of a group supervision session following a moving and handling incident. The supervisor and relevant staff explored challenges in practice and identified key learning. Expectations for staff were reinforced. The session aimed to reduce the risk of similar incidents recurring.

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 external agencies, including hospital discharge teams, and gathered essential information about people’s needs before they started using the service. They then engaged with people and their relatives to understand their needs, preferences and any specific requirements, such as communication needs, cultural preferences and support needs. This approach helped ensure a smooth and safe transition from hospital into the community.

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 took prompt actions when they identified people were at risk of self-neglect, including engaging with the appropriate health and social care professionals and implementing immediate safety measures. People and their relatives told us they felt safe. Their comments included, “I’m not worried about ever feeling unsafe” and “They help me with all my care needs and keep me safe.”

Staff understood and adhered to safeguarding procedures. They knew how and when to report concerns.

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.

The provider operated a system that assessed and rated each person’s risk level based on their individual needs and circumstances. The higher the risk, the more frequently staff reviewed the person’s needs, helping to ensure that risk management measures remained effective. An example of a robust risk assessment was for a person supported by staff to attend their place of worship, while promoting independence, dignity and wellbeing. It included clear safety measures such as escorting arrangements, route planning, wheelchair checks and contingency planning, and considered their physical disability, making the assessment comprehensive and personalised. For another person who was blind, their risk assessments focused on effective communication, obtaining consent and the physical environment. This promoted safety and confidence while supporting independence and dignity.

Staff understood the risks affecting people and how to minimise them. People and relatives felt staff provided safe care and support. Their feedback included, “They keep me safe from risks”, “I feel there are no safety issues with the carers as they have good knowledge on safety risks” and “The carers handle and move [person] very well.”

The provider consistently took a proactive approach to identifying and reducing environmental risks in people’s homes, including arranging and funding urgent repairs and escalating safeguarding concerns to maintain safety. They acted promptly, often outside of their commissioned responsibilities, to ensure risks were mitigated without delay. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. This approach reduced risks to people and helped ensure they remained safe in their home environments.

For example, staff had noticed a damaged key safe in a person’s home. The provider reported the matter to the police and arranged for a management staff to attend to ensure the person’s safety. They escalated the incident to the appropriate health and social care team and implemented additional checks on key safes. Another person experienced a faulty door lock and electrical faults that affected their heating and hot water. The service identified these concerns and escalated them to the local authority. They also arranged for appropriate maintenance, including an electrician, to carry out the necessary repairs. This demonstrated the service’s prompt action to ensure the person’s home was safe and that they had access to heating and hot water.

The provider assessed risks within people’s physical environments, including fire safety, while taking account of individual needs. They arranged prompt repairs where issues were identified as urgent and potentially impacting safety.

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. However, there were gaps in recruitment checks.

For several staff members, their recruitment files did not consistently evidence a full employment history as required, and gaps in employment were not always explored. The provider advised action had been taken to address this going forward. Other recruitment checks, including DBS checks, 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. A person told us, “I know all the faces. The carers are usually on time, but they can be held up in traffic. They always ring me when they are going to be late. It has no negative impact on my care. I feel carers stay for as long as required and cover all the care duties to my satisfaction.”

Staff received appropriate training, including specialist training specific to people’s individual care and health needs. They also received regular supervision and appraisals of their work. A staff member said, “We have regular training, like mobility, hoist, new wheelchair, how to handle people. Both written theory and physical, also training on medication.”

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. Comments included, “I think the carers have good standards of hygiene in personal appearance and domestically. They are always wearing uniforms and gloves are changed regularly”, “Hygiene standards are good. They walk in and cover their shoes and wear gloves and uniforms that they keep clean” and “I’ve never come into the house and detected unpleasant smells.”

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.

There was clear information in care plans regarding the level of support people required with medicines administration, their preferences and storage. Staff completed medicine administration records each time they supported people to take their medicines, including any refusals. They escalated any concerns promptly. Management staff, including care coordinators, took medicines concerns seriously and liaised with GPs and pharmacies where necessary to ensure people had timely access to their medicines. The service maintained effective oversight of people’s medicines, including regular medicines reviews which provided clear records of changes over time and any specific instructions for staff. Managers ensured staff were competent to manage and administer medicines.

A few people were prescribed PRN (as required) medicines, such as painkillers. However, there was no guidance to advise staff when to administer these medicines. After we raised this issue with the registered manager, they immediately implemented the necessary guidance. A person told us, “I take medication and the carers remind me to take them.”