Genuine Carers - Oxford City

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.

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 promoted a proactive and positive culture of safety that encouraged openness, honesty and continuous learning. Staff were confident to raise concerns about safety, and there were effective processes for reporting and investigating safety events. Lessons learned were identified, shared and used to embed ongoing improvements in practice.

There was a clear system for recording accidents, incidents and concerns. Actions taken in response to these events were documented, and incident and action logs were routinely reviewed by the registered manager to ensure appropriate responses had been implemented. Themes and trends were monitored to identify emerging risks and opportunities for learning.

People and their relatives were informed of safety incidents when appropriate. They told us they knew who to contact if they had concerns or did not feel safe and said they would speak with the manager for support.

Staff told us they understood how to report incidents or safety issues and felt supported to do so. Information, updates and learning were shared promptly through regular staff meetings, electronic messaging, emails and one‑to‑one supervision. Policies were reviewed with staff during meetings when relevant, for example, the medicines policy was recently discussed to reinforce safe practice expectations. The provider also conducted regular spot checks on care calls to monitor the quality of care being delivered and to identify any further learning or development needs.

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 before they began receiving support to ensure the service could safely meet their requirements. People and their relatives were actively involved in the assessment process, meaning their preferences and wishes were reflected in their care plans.

Care records were stored electronically, enabling the service to share up‑to‑date information with healthcare partners when needed. Staff told us they received clear and prompt information on how to support new people coming to the service, which helped them deliver safe and consistent care.

The provider worked effectively with a range of healthcare professionals, including community nurses, GPs and specialist teams, to support continuity of care. One healthcare professional praised this collaborative approach, stating, “Care staff liaise with the SALT (speech and language) team and GP over medication management and work jointly with the client’s parents. They listened to health professionals and took on the advice provided. They made onward referrals to specialist services and addressed issues relating to medication management.” This feedback provides evidence of strong, proactive engagement with wider health services and a shared approach to managing people’s needs safely.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to each person and how this could be achieved. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while protecting their rights to live safely and free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. Safeguarding concerns were shared promptly and appropriately with relevant agencies.

People’s relatives told us their family members felt safe and well supported by staff. One relative commented, “Yes, they are safe. There are no risks.”

Staff had received safeguarding training and demonstrated an understanding of the different types of abuse people may be at risk of. Staff told us they would report any concerns to the registered manager without delay. One member of staff said, “I completed the safeguarding course. We inform management and complete a form, or report concerns directly to the safeguarding authority at the council. I am confident I know what to do.”

The registered manager understood their responsibility for investigating safeguarding concerns and reporting these to the appropriate agencies, including the local authority. People told us they knew who to contact if they had any concerns about their safety.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks in a holistic and person‑centred way. Staff provided care that was safe, supportive and enabled people to continue doing the things that mattered to them.

People were involved in decisions about their care and risk management, and their views were used to shape how risks were assessed and managed. Risk assessments were in place for areas such as falls, nutrition, medication and environmental safety. These contained clear guidance for staff on how to support people to minimise and manage risks, including actions required to reduce the likelihood of harm.

Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible while balancing and mitigating risks appropriately. Care records included important information about people’s mobility, medical conditions and other factors that could affect their safety.

People and relatives told us they felt well supported to stay safe in their own homes. One relative explained, “[Staff member] tells me about [persons] mental health and if anything serious happened [staff member] would contact me and call an ambulance [staff member] is like a friend.” Another person told us, “They spotted a bed sore.” This demonstrated that staff understood people’s risks well and responded promptly and appropriately when concerns arose.

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 risk assessments were carried out to identify and address any risks to people and staff. An assessment of each person’s home environment was completed before a care package commenced, and this information was shared with staff so that any identified risks were known, understood and appropriately managed.

The service worked effectively with healthcare professionals to ensure risks were monitored and addressed as they arose particularly in relation to equipment prescribed for use in people’s homes. One occupational Therapist told us, “Care staff raise concerns as they arise, particularly when we are working with the person together. We communicate via email, telephone and Microsoft Teams meetings.” This demonstrated a collaborative approach to maintaining safe home environments and responding promptly to emerging risks.

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.

Policies and procedures were in place to help recruit staff safely. Checks on the suitability of potential staff were completed. This included obtaining references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and help prevent unsuitable people from working in care services.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs, and rotas were planned to ensure continuity and consistency of care. Systems were in place to ensure staff received training suitable for their role and that they had the required qualifications. The provider supported staff to access training appropriate to their role, including online autism awareness training and learning disability training. Staff supported a small number of people with learning disabilities and autism and demonstrated an understanding of how to provide person‑centred care. Where required, staff accessed advice from external professionals, for example from a learning disability physiotherapist. While learning disability and autism training could be further strengthened, this had not negatively impacted on people’s experience of care. Staff received induction and shadowing opportunities when they started in their job role.

Staff received supervisions and their practice and competencies were checked. This enabled management to monitor and discuss care staff’s role, performance and development.

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 said that staff always wore gloves and aprons whilst providing care and staff tidied up before leaving. One person told us “Not only do they wear gloves and an apron but they wash their hands when they arrive and when they leave. Staff confirmed that they always had enough (PPE) available to them and had completed infection prevention and control training.

We saw that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date. The provider carried out regular spots checks of carers to ensure that they were completing effective hand hygiene and infection prevention and control measures.

The provider had safe and effective systems in place to support the management of medicines. Staff received training in medicines administration and demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities to ensure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Minor issues relating to medicine documentation were identified during the assessment and were addressed promptly by the provider. Staff were supported to strengthen practice, and additional measures, including “train‑the‑trainer” medication training and the planned introduction of electronic Medicines Administration Records (eMAR), were being implemented to further improve consistency and accuracy.

Medication risk assessments were completed where required, and staff had access to clear guidance to support people with their medicines. Audits and spot checks were carried out to monitor practice and identify any areas for improvement. When concerns were identified, the provider took timely action to reduce risk and support staff learning.

Although medicines were managed safely overall, documentation relating to one person’s “as required” medicine did not fully reflect best‑practice guidance at the time of inspection. The person self‑managed their medicine and there was no risk or impact on their wellbeing; however, a protocol outlining when the medicine should be used was not in place. The provider acted promptly to address this once identified. Overall, people received their medicines safely, and governance arrangements were effective in supporting safe and consistent medicines management.