Vision Care Services

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.

Accidents and incidents were reported by staff and action was taken to mitigate the risk of events happening again. There was a clear process in place for responding to complaints and concerns. The provider demonstrated a proactive approach, including conducting detailed case studies when things went wrong, and ensuring any learning was effectively shared with staff, people and relatives.

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.

Continuity of care was maintained by ensuring staff had defined communication channels and access to clear records. Where required referrals were made to other agencies for support, guidance or equipment. People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service.

Theprovider 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.

There were clear processes in place to manage safeguarding events and the registered manager collaborated with the local authority to support people safely. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood how to recognise and report poor care and abuse. Safeguarding was a standing agenda item in team and individual meetings. People and relatives told us they felt safe. Comments included, “I am 100% safe. They [staff] are so careful with me.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage most 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 wellbeing were assessed and regularly reviewed. Key risks such as falls, skin integrity and nutrition and hydration were assessed and monitored. Where people had complex needs, additional risks were fully assessed and included input from other health and social care professionals. Staff told us they were kept up to date about any changes relating to people’s needs through good communication and handovers. The service held regular team meetings for core groups of staff to discuss care plans and consistent ways of working. There were robust on call systems to support with any emergencies. One staff member commented, “The service is agile in a crisis moment. The on-call phone is [available] 24 hours.”

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

The provider completed environmental risk assessments. Care plans included practical details about people’s homes to support staff in carrying out their duties safely. The layout and risks associated with working in people’s own homes were considered in training scenarios. For example, the service had a dedicated training room, which was designed to replicate a small home.

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.

Safe staffing levels were in place and there were robust processes in place to monitor the length and punctuality of call times. Recruitment was managed safely. People were usually supported by a regular core team of staff. Comments included, “I get the same group of carers, they are consistent. They know what they are doing.” Staff had the induction, support and training to be able to carry out their role effectively. The provider had a dedicated training officer. There was a rolling programme of training, which included specialist training and spot checks. This ensured staff had the necessary knowledge and skills to support people safely.

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.

Processes were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of infection. Staff received training and had their competency regularly checked to ensure they maintained safe standards. We received positive feedback from people and relatives in this area.

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.

Medicines were managed safely. Medication administration records (MARs) were clear and well completed. Care plans indicated where and how people’s medicines should be stored and their preferred way of taking these. One person was prescribed a high-risk medication and whilst the MAR was clear, there was no detailed care plan in place. We were assured the provider would address this. There was a dedicated staff member responsible for audits. Checks were detailed, and where any shortfalls were found, prompt action was taken. The service used a live electronic system, and daily monitoring of medication administration was in place. Staff had training to be able to carry out their role and their competency was regularly assessed.