Homecare Alliance Ltd

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.

People told us they felt safe. A person said, “I feel safe when [carer] is around”

Concerns raised were recorded with actions and outcomes clear. Learning from such issues was evidenced in communication with staff following events where changes were required for future prevention.

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.

When people initially began receiving care from Homecare Alliance they were fully involved in the process. Care coordinators conducted home visits to ensure they were able to provide the care needed prior to accepting people to the service. Records including care plans were well maintained to ensure the information could be shared with other services promptly if needed.

The service made appropriate referrals to partner agencies for support as needed. This included healthcare teams and social services. Partners told us “requests made for review of care, contact with GP and Social Services were made where changes to support needs were identified.”

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.

Records of safeguarding incidents were complete, though could have been improved by explicitly declaring when there had been no concerns raised in a reporting month.

The provider has a clear safeguarding policy in place. Staff we spoke to understood their role in ensuring people were safe.

Partner agencies said the service, “communicates relevant safety concerns in a timely manner.”

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.

Risk assessments were included in care plans, relating to health, social and environmental risks. There were clear directions of how risks could be mitigated by care staff written as individually applicable to people.

A reliable consistency of care staff helped to reduce risks due to familiarity of people’s needs.

Care plans were person centred with encouragement for people to make decisions around their care and lifestyles with support as needed. In cases where people did not have the capacity to make specific decisions, the service made sure those with delegated authority to make such decisions on a person’s behalf were involved.

One person told us, “[Carer] knows I’m at risk with falls and so [carer] makes sure I am ok and have everything I need before she leaves.”

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

We found fire risk assessments were inconsistent and advised the provider to ensure details were provided where people smoked or cooked and for smoke detectors to be confirmed as present in people’s homes or recorded and relevant advice given where they are not.

Equipment used to support people it their homes was only used following appropriate staff training to ensure safety when doing so. The service liaised with local health and social care teams when equipment was considered to be unsuitable or new/additional items could be of benefit.

Staff recorded any potential hazards in the environment and where possible rectified these before the end of a visit. Where there were ongoing issues relating to the environment these were escalated to obtain support to rectify, for example to housing providers or local authorities

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 recruitment files we viewed showed the employment of adequately experienced staff to perform their roles, in line with the services own recruitment policy. Staff all achieved an acceptable level of English language skill and provided suitable references and criminal background checks prior to beginning work at Homecare Alliance.

A training and induction schedule took place before staff began to provide care to people. This included training in areas such as safeguarding, health and safety and practical moving and handling training. Staff shadowed others providing care and received field supervision regularly as well as 1 to 1 supervision sessions away from the caregiving environment.

People told us they felt staff were trained to do their jobs well and they felt safe with staff. A person said, “They are well trained. They are quite understanding.” A relative we spoke to said, “Whenever new equipment is delivered, the carers are taught how to safely use it.”

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.

There was a clear infection prevention policy in place which included details of how to prevent infection occurring but also steps to take following the development of infection including the involvement of other services where necessary.

The service followed advice from healthcare teams and shared updates/escalated as necessary.

Staff were able to collect personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gloves, aprons etc in bulk from the service office. Staff told us this was always readily available in sufficient quantities.

People we spoke with confirmed this a person said, “Yes, the carer wears PPE every time. [carer] wears gloves mostly and puts on an apron for changing the cat litter.” Another person said, “Carer is always wearing PPE. If [carer] runs out, [carer] goes to the office to collect it before coming here.”

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.

Where staff supported people with medicines this was recorded on electronic medicines administration records (eMAR) – this meant medicine delivered was recorded in real time. This system also allowed for recording of any times medication was declined and was monitored by senior staff in the office.

Any concerns relating to medicines were appropriately escalated to relevant healthcare partners.

Care plans provided clear details of medicines including their purpose and potential side effects.

Staff received regular medicines competency training.

One relative told us, “[Relatives] morning medication is very important and so if they haven’t been able to give it, they will tell me immediately and I will ask the lunch time carer to give it.”