Home Instead Kensington & Chelsea

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 72 (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 registered manager promoted learning from incidents, complaints and compliments from people, through regular discussion in team meetings and sharing actions by messaging the team.

Learning was also reinforced in supervision. Incidents were reviewed regularly to identify trends.

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.

Families noted having thorough handovers and introductions before care started. The provider completed pre-assessment paperwork with people and their relatives prior to people’s care commencing. The provider shared this information with staff to ensure continuity.

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.

Care workers understood how to identify and report safeguarding concerns. The registered manager and field supervisors described clear examples of escalating concerns appropriately to the local authority. One example involved a complex case where the person’s capacity varied, and the service liaised with the family and professionals to protect the person’s welfare. The registered manager said that they contact the local authority’s safeguarding team for advice when needed. Staff were confident they could raise issues without fear.

Families consistently described the service as safe, trustworthy, and proactive in addressing risks. People felt confident to contact the office or registered manager if they had any worries, and feedback suggested an open, transparent culture where concerns would be taken seriously.

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 their relatives were involved in assessing and managing risks. Families described being included in reviews and decisions. Reviews included discussion of health and environmental risks, and consent was obtained and recorded.

The registered manager explained that families often contributed to care plan updates, saying, “We go back to them regularly to check if anything’s changed.” Care workers described adapting care in response to what was noticed during visits.

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

Care workers completed environmental checks during assessments and review visits. The provider supported people to install key safes where appropriate. Field supervisors monitored safety through support visits and reported concerns promptly through their online system and messaging platform.

A relative we spoke to said, “I think it’s all very safe for [person], and they look after [person] very well.”

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.

Staffing levels met people’s needs, and continuity was prioritised. There were enough staff to support people safely. Recruitment followed safer recruitment checks. Supervision and appraisal were tracked electronically. A field care supervisor said, “I can see if any training or competencies are expiring and get staff in to update.” Care workers were confident they had time to deliver care safely.

Feedback from relatives included, “We have a great consistent carer.” Another said, “Carers are fantastic – very experienced, very supportive.”

A person we spoke to said, “Replacement carers shadow for a few days, which is good to see.”

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 an IPC [infection prevention and control] policy and conducted effective audits which provided assurance that systems were in place and working to minimise the risk and protect people and staff. Field care supervisors observed care workers’ hygiene and PPE [personal protective equipment] practice.

A supervisor said that they keep spare gloves, aprons and shoe covers to bring to people in case anyone runs low. Staff had training in IPC and food hygiene.

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.

Overall, medicines were managed safely, and people received their prescribed medicines as intended. The provider used electronic medication administration records (eMAR) integrated with the NHS medicines database, which ensured medicine names were accurate and updated in real time. The system generated alerts for missed or refused doses, enabling prompt follow-up. Staff were trained and assessed for competency before administering medicines and completed annual refresher courses.

People and their relatives were involved in discussions about medicines during assessments and reviews, and care workers escalated concerns appropriately to GPs. We received positive feedback from relatives, such as, “Carers are very careful with [person’s] meds.”

We found a couple of minor issues related to documentation rather than unsafe practice. These included care plans not always being fully aligned with current prescriptions and some inconsistencies in recording who administered medicines.

Oversight was supported through medication administration records (MAR) audits, real-time monitoring, and three-monthly field supervisor visits. These processes, combined with strong communication with GPs, demonstrated that medicines were managed safely, though improvements are needed in documentation clarity and accuracy.