Happy Valley Home Care Limited

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.

The provider promoted a culture where staff were encouraged to report concerns, incidents and near misses and managers responded to issues raised. Incident records demonstrated wider organisational learning, trend analysis and how improvements were shared across the workforce.
 

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 experienced coordinated care and support that promoted their safety and wellbeing. Staff worked closely with family members, health professionals, social workers and community services when people's needs changed. External professionals consistently described the provider as proactive and reported staff communicated effectively and escalated concerns in a timely way.
 

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 were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding responsibilities and were able to explain different types of abuse and how concerns should be reported. The provider had safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures which supported staff to raise concerns, and records showed safeguarding matters were reported to appropriate agencies when required. Staff told us they understood how to escalate concerns and felt able to speak up about poor practice. Feedback from relatives and professionals indicated people were safe and that concerns were acted upon appropriately.
 

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 and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in decisions about managing risks and maintaining independence. Care plans reflected people's preferences, strengths, choices and desired outcomes and were generally written in the person's own voice. Risk assessments considered a range of known risks, including falls, mobility, medicines, nutrition and health conditions, while promoting people's rights to make decisions about their lives. Staff understood the importance of balancing safety with independence and described how they supported people to remain as independent as possible.
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.
People were supported safely within their home environments. Risk assessments considered environmental factors, mobility needs, moving and handling arrangements and the use of equipment. Staff had access to guidance about supporting people safely and records showed equipment such as mobility aids, emergency alarms, shower chairs and transfer equipment were used to reduce risks. Incident records demonstrated prompt action when environmental or mobility concerns were identified.
 

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.
There were sufficient numbers of suitably skilled staff to meet people's needs safely. People and relatives consistently praised the reliability, professionalism and continuity of the staff team. Rotas showed people were often supported by a small group of familiar staff, helping them to build trusting relationships and feel safe. Staff received regular supervision, spot checks and competency assessments, including medicines competency reviews. Stakeholders described staff as knowledgeable, competent and responsive to changes in people's needs. Staff were recruited safely, we did however share some minor feedback with the provider around the need for more robust references for 1 staff member. The provider agreed to action this.
 

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 were protected from the risk of infection.
Staff completed infection prevention and control training and were provided with guidance to support safe practice. Infection control formed part of the provider's training programme and governance arrangements.
 

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.
People received support with medicines from staff who had undertaken training and regular competency assessments. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of medicines management, medicine administration procedures and how to respond to medication concerns. Records showed medication incidents were identified, investigated and reported appropriately, with action taken to improve safety, including refresher training, competency checks and changes to care arrangements. Audits also monitored medicines management and had led to improvements in practice.