Everlife (Wiltshire)

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 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. Concerns were raised to the registered manager and these concerns were investigated.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Staff analysed audits and changed their ways of working with people. This meant staff were able to learn to and improve care for people.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and reviewed by the management team to ensure actions were implemented. We looked at several incidents and found the provider had supported people involved and a lessons learnt exercise had been completed. For example, additional training was provided by the service to help staff support a person to speak to their relative. This prevented the person becoming anxious. This ensured continuous improvement and development.

People and staff knew how to raise concerns outside of the management team. Of the seven staff we spoke to, all told us what they would do to help prevent the development of a closed culture. For example, if staff witnessed unsafe practices when delivering care, they told us they would raise a concern. Staff knew who to contact in the event of any concerns being identified.

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.

People were supported to review their own care plans and helped to write their one-page profiles. One-page profiles ensure health care staff have a good understanding of a person’s needs to ensure continuity of care.

For people who were looking to start care from the service, care planning documents demonstrated people were put first. For example, the provider had thought about how people would feel and what support they would need to move between providers. Specific comments included “[the care planning documents] were in place from the previous care company but Everlife sat down with me and went through my needs to make sure nothing had changed”.

The provider worked with people 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. People told us they felt safe in their home and staff helped them stay safe. Of the seven staff we spoke to, all informed us they understood what safeguarding meant. Staff talked about examples of how to keep people safe when providing care. One member of staff spoke to us about best practices such as confidentiality and the importance of raising a concern.

Staff received safeguarding training and records demonstrated when they needed to complete refresher training. This meant there was effective oversight of training compliance.

People were supported to develop skills to stay safe in the community. One person told us they had helped write their risk assessment for leaving their house and accessing the community. There were easy read documents on how to speak up if people wished to discuss anything of concern.

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.

Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had been assessed and action taken to manage those risks. For example, people at risk of falls had a support plan and risk assessment in place. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the risks and ensured care plans were updated regularly with people when their needs changed. We observed detailed and individualised risk assessments for people including how to manage risks. For example the risk of paraffin-based emollients.

The provider told us they had successfully worked with a person to reduce their support after they left hospital. The person told us this meant that they were able to be more independent. This demonstrated the provider’s commitment to supporting people in an empowering way. The provider also told us about a person they could not support due to changing needs. This demonstrated the provider was aware of the service’s capabilities and how to manage them.

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

The provider assessed people’s homes for risks and took action to ensure people, staff and visitors remained safe. People had environmental risk assessments which detailed hazards in people’s homes and what risks could be encountered if people were supported in the community.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

On-call staff were used to cover any staff sickness. This minimised the risk of any missed visits and ensured people received support from staff they knew well.

People and their relatives told us there were enough staff to meet their needs, including support for them to attend last minute appointments.

Pre-employment checks had been completed for staff before starting work. New staff received an induction, including shadowing experienced staff. Staff told us they received regular training, supervision and an annual appraisal. This ensured a competent and safe workforce when supporting people.

Staff told us there was always someone to talk to if they had any queries out of hours. They said they could post a question on the care app or call the on-call manager. Staff told us there were always plenty of well-trained staff to support the service.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection and told us they would raise anything with appropriate agencies promptly.

People told us staff supported them to keep their home clean.

Staff completed infection prevention and control (IPC) training and told us they had access to all the personal protective equipment they needed. We saw IPC audits had been completed. Staff spoke to us about the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE) and told us PPE was available from the office.

However, some concerns had been raised regarding staff not changing their gloves between tasks and, on one occasion not putting gloves on when supporting a person with personal care. Over the course of six months, this issue had been raised three times with the employee. As an outcome had not been recorded, the provider was not able to evidence any lessons had been learnt. We raised this with the provider who took immediate action.

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

People told us staff provided good support for them to take their medicines. Staff had completed training in the safe management of medicines and leaders regularly observed their practice. Medicines audits and competency spot checks were completed to ensure staff knew how to dispense and administer medicines safely.

People were supported to have regular reviews of their medicines with their doctor. The provider was working in line with STOMP guidance. This ensured they were not prescribed more medicine than necessary. Medicines errors were documented and raised in the appropriate way. All people had medicine risk assessments, body maps for emollients and guidelines in place. The medicine administration record (MAR) chart showed all medicines including creams were accounted for. This ensured people were taking the right medicines at the right time.