Everycare (Isle of Wight)

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 and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Safety events such as accidents and incidents had been investigated and reported with actions taken to mitigate against recurrence. The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour which require providers to be open and honest following any safety incidents.

The provider worked with people, health and social care 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. Systems were in place to ensure continuity of care when people commenced a care service and there was involvement of the person, family members and external health or social care professionals. An external professional told us, “I have had a recent referral where Everycare had assessed but identified that this person required a male only carer with specific training which they were unable to provide”. This demonstrated that the service would only proceed to support people where they were only able to do so safely.

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 family members said they felt safe when receiving care. For example, a person told us, “Yes, I feel safe. They [care staff] do what they have to do and leave. They understand I have rights and preferences”. A family member said, “I think they are very safe. They [care staff] understand they have rights. They have a caring nature and are interested in accommodating what they are asking.”

The management team had taken appropriate action in relation to any safeguarding concerns. The local safeguarding team had been informed where required and care staff understood their safeguarding and consent responsibilities.

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. Care staff confirmed they had access to risk assessments and said they could always contact the office if they were unsure about anything. Individual risk assessments had been completed following the initial assessment and these were subsequently updated at regular reviews or if the person’s risks had changed. There was a business continuity plan which identified people who required priority of calls based on individual risk should the usual service be disrupted such as during severe weather.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Detailed individual risk assessments associated with the person’s home environment were completed before the service was commenced. Assessments noted if smoke or carbon monoxide detectors were in place but did not always state who was responsible for checking these were working on a regular basis. The registered manager agreed to add this information to the care plans. The registered manager knew how to access specific equipment should this be required and staff confirmed they had received training to use equipment safely.

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. Some people told us staff did not always arrive on time and they were not always informed of the delays. The registered manager had sent a letter to everyone apologising if staff were not always on time but that was often out of the service’s control such as traffic or staff sickness. We reviewed staff duty rosters and saw that some of these did not have adequate or any travel time between care visits. We discussed this with the registered manager who had been unaware of this scheduling error and undertook to monitor staff rosters to ensure this was rectified.

People, family members and visit records confirmed staff generally stayed for the full length of the call and completed all tasks required. A family member said, “Consistent with the same carers. They understand [person] and know where things are. They arrive on time. I get the schedule with a week's rota. They stay maybe longer. They were willing to wait when we had to call an ambulance.”

Training was up to date and covered all relevant topics. Staff were positive about their training. Newer staff confirmed that the training had helped them and they had undertaken shadow shifts prior to working on their own.

There were appropriate pre-employment processes and records viewed showed necessary checks had been completed.

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. People and family members confirmed Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was used where needed. For example, a person said, “Yes they use PPE. Yes, they wash their hands. They leave used things in the outside bin when they’ve finished. I’ve had no chest or urine infections. None at all. The place is kept very clean. Their hygiene is very good.”

The management team and care staff understood the actions they should take should there be a specific infection risk or concern for an individual person. Staff received training in infection prevention and control and food hygiene to support good practice 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. Following some medicines administration errors the registered manager had introduced some additional checks on medicine stock levels. They told us this had resulted in the errors no longer occurring.

Information about medicines people were prescribed was detailed in their care plans along with risk assessments where indicated such as for blood thinning medicines. We noted that in one person’s care plan there was no information as to when an as needed medication for seizures should be administered. The registered manager promptly arranged for this to be added. This would help ensure consistency in administration. Staff had received training to administer medicines and their competency was assessed on a regular basis. A family member said, “Good records with medication. Blister packs from the pharmacy, as well as other medication. I can see that the tablets have been given. They [care staff] will remind me when things are running low, like renewal of eye drops.”