Divine Intervention 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.

Effective procedures were in place for analysing incidents and accidents and the complaints folder had no complaints entered for the past year. The manager explained their complaints process and how they would achieve a satisfactory resolution when handling a complaint.

Communication with staff was robust, with regular team meetings taking place. All appropriate information about people’s care, and any changes in risk or needs, was recorded on each person’s electronic and paper file, so staff could readily access this. All staff had appropriate induction training to identify, and report concerns to their manager, with follow up meetings taking place.

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 well-coordinated transitions, with staff obtaining relevant information from family members and social workers to ensure a safe transition. A person described the process as “seamless” and made the family feel “included and reassured”.

Staff understood referral pathways and used them appropriately. This included referrals to SALT (speech and language therapists), occupational therapists and district nurses when people’s needs changed. The provider was able to evidence timely professional involvement for ongoing medical health care needs.

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.

Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and understood the processes to raise concerns which protected people from the risk of abuse. Staff received safeguarding training from the provider and confirmed they felt confident to escalate issues to their manager, local authority, and the Care Quality Commission. Staff told us if they had any concerns over a person’s safety they would contact the provider immediately.

There were no Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, (DoLS) in place at the time of the assessment, but the manager understood the process and the appropriate polices were in place. DoLS are important human rights safeguards; they aim to ensure that such deprivation of liberty only happens when it is necessary, proportionate and in the person’s best interests.

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 plans and risk assessments contained detailed guidance for staff to follow, including how to support people safely with providing personal care, taking medication, and communication. Staff we spoke with understood risks to people and how to support them to remain safe. Staff understood people with complex health conditions. Staff had a good understanding of the people’s care requirements and how they like them to be completed.

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed in line with the provider’s policy, as were individual goals set out for each person using the service. Annual reviews included the person, and family member where appropriate, and all changes to care plans were agreed with people and family members where appropriate.

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 carried out annual assessments on the people’s properties to ensure care was delivered in a safe environment. This included checking maintenance dates on manual handling equipment used at the property. Aside from the annual assessment, processes were in place for care staff to report changes or concerns to the office, to be followed up on.

A relative described the annual reassessments process as “detailed and straightforward”.

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.

Rotas showed consistent staffing levels, and staff described good teamwork and support from the manager.

People were supported by staff who had been recruited using safe recruitment processes. This included checking new staff’ work histories and ensuring staff had a Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS), which is used by employers to assess the suitability of candidates for roles that involve working with children or vulnerable adults.

Staff had completed appropriate training to care for the people using the service, including learning disabilities and autism training. The provider evidenced regular competency checks were carried out on staff to confirm care had been delivered in the way intended from training.

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.

The provider had appropriate quantities of personal protective equipment (PPE) at the office for care staff to collect as and when required.

Staff confirmed there was always PPE available when they requested it and infection control training had been delivered. A member of staff confirmed PPE checks were included when competency checks were completed.

One person told us staff “put their gloves on in front of me, then take them off before they leave, so I can see they’re clean”.

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.

Staff received appropriate training and had their competency checked at regular intervals. Records demonstrated medicines administration records (MAR) had been completed accurately and in line with best practice guidance.

There was clear guidance in place, in the form of PRN protocols, to ensure staff knew when to offer people ‘when required’ (PRN) medication, and there was evidence of staff administering this medicine when necessary.