Affinity Trust - Domiciliary Care Agency - Shipley and Airedale

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 we looked at 3 quality statements and 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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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 told us they felt safe. One person told us, “I feel safe here. Staff stay with me, I heard thunder, and I was scared but staff were there to help me.” Another person told us, “Yes I feel safe.”

Staff had the knowledge and confidence to identify safeguarding concerns and take action to keep people safe. One staff member said, “I would identify safeguarding concerns if the needs and safety of the people we are supporting are neglected or they are at risk of abuse or harm, this would be reported directly to my Line manager. I am very confident because not reporting would put the people we are supporting at risk, and we also have a whistleblowing policy in place.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In [care homes/hospitals], this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that people had being referred to outside professionals and in some cases waiting for outcomes.

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.

People who used the service had a range of risk assessments in place relating to the support they received. These covered areas such as accessing the community, finances, eating and mobility. Where any risks were identified, there were control measures in place to keep people safe.

Staff knew people well and were aware of how to reduce risk to keep people safe. One member of staff told us, “We know what people like to do and we try new things, we give people choice all the time what they would like to do. We can tell if they have enjoyed something by their facial expressions, show and tell. People have been on holiday, and we risk assess that as well.” Another staff member told us, “The care plan gives me an overview of the people I am supporting as it contains their detailed personal documents, social needs which enable me Identify and prevent any related risk hence enabling me to ensure their safety and value their choices.”

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support and supervision. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People receiving support and their relatives told us staff had the right skills to do their job. They told us staff were respectful and caring in their approach and knew people well.

Staff were provided with relevant training and supervision, so they had the skills they needed to undertake their role. Staff told us they received the training they required and were supported to undertake additional training when this was needed. However, some mandatory staff training was needed to be completed. We spoke with the registered manager who told us, “Our new training portal [name] allows staff to view their own training and book onto required courses. We have identified a need to provide better access to some of the newer courses and have requested additional sessions to ensure that all staff are able to complete any additional training promptly.”

A relative told us, “I do not need to worry staff there are plenty of staff and they are well trained. I have peace of mind.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.