Aims Homecare Limited - Leatherhead

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. Leaders had oversight of incidents and accidents and there was evidence of actions taken following these to reduce risk of recurrence. Staff felt there was a learning culture at the service.

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’s needs were assessed prior to them using the service. There were systems in place to ensure people safely moved between services. The manager told us, “We now complete a baseline body map at the start of every package and on every return home from hospital, and any concern is reported the same day to both the GP and [the local authority]. We track unplanned hospital admissions across our caseload and discuss them at our monthly quality meeting.”

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 their relatives told us people were safe. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and felt concerns would be appropriately handled. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse.

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.

Risks to people had been assessed and there was information in care plans to mitigate these. People and their relatives felt risks were well managed. Staff said they had enough information to manage risks effectively.

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

Environmental risks had been assessed, such as fire safety and security risks. Staff had received training in health and safety and fire safety. People had access to equipment they needed, such as mobility aids.

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.
Staff were recruited safely and received a range of training relevant to people’s needs. People and relatives said staff generally came on time and stayed for the full duration. They also commented they felt staff were well trained.

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 relatives told us staff supported them to keep their environment clean to reduce the risk of infection. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control. There was a policy in place which outlined how to minimise the risk of infection.

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 their medicines as prescribed. There was a clear medicines policy for staff which outlined procedures. Staff had completed training in medicines including a check on their competency. People had protocols in place for “when required” medicines such as paracetamol, however these included variable doses. For example, a protocol said that 1 or 2 paracetamol could be given with no further details about when these should be administered. We raised this with the manager for them to address