Home Instead Worthing and Steyning Also known as Home Instead

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. The provider had effective oversight of accidents, incidents and complaints. These were recorded and reviewed to identify themes and drive improvement. Staff told us there was a supportive culture where they felt able to raise concerns and contribute to learning. One member of staff said, “We are encouraged to report anything straight away and it is always followed up, so we know it’s taken seriously.” Another told us, “Incidents are discussed as a team so we can learn from them and improve how we support people.”
 

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.

Care was coordinated with external professionals to support continuity. Staff described how they communicated with healthcare services and escalated concerns where required, which supported people to receive timely and coordinated care. Care plans and records were updated to reflect changes in people’s needs, enabling staff to deliver care that remained consistent and responsive.

Continuity of care was supported through consistent staff allocation, which people and relatives told us helped build trusting relationships. One relative said, “[Person] sees 2 carers with another 2 at some visits plus 2 occasionally to cover holidays or sickness. We value the consistency.” Staff were also matched to people based on their needs and preferences, which supported more personalised care and improved outcomes.

Processes were also in place to support people during key transition points, including when starting care or returning home from hospital. Structured assessments and information sharing arrangements helped ensure staff had up-to-date guidance and that risks, changes in need and professional involvement were clearly communicated.

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 we spoke with told us they felt safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people. They told us concerns would be reported without delay and were confident appropriate action would be taken. One staff member said, “We go straight to the office. I feel that the office act on things and I always get assurances and follow up calls.” The provider had safeguarding systems in place to support oversight. This included monitoring concerns to identify trends and patterns. Policies and procedures supported staff to report concerns, and records showed these were documented and acted upon. The provider worked with external agencies where required to ensure people remained protected. These arrangements supported a consistent approach to safeguarding and helped keep people safe.
 

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks so that care was delivered safely while supporting people to maintain their independence and choice. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and reviewed, and care plans included clear guidance for staff on how to support people safely. People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and how risks were managed. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual risks and how these should be managed in practice. Staff told us, “We always involve people in how they want things done, even when there are risks, so they still have choice.” Another member of staff said, “Care plans are clear about risks, but we also check with people each time to make sure they are happy with how we support them.”
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Risks within people’s home environments were assessed and managed. Care plans included environmental and fire risk assessments, and people had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place to guide staff on safe evacuation procedures. Equipment used to support people’s care was available and used appropriately. Where required, external professionals checked equipment to ensure it remained safe and suitable for use. Staff understood their responsibilities in maintaining safe environments and were able to report concerns relating to equipment or environmental risks. This supported timely identification and management of risks and helped keep people safe in their homes.
 

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. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People and relatives told us visits were carried out as planned and staff arrived on time and stayed for the full duration. One relative told us, “We always see the same face which is nice for [person].” This supported continuity of care and helped people feel comfortable with the staff supporting them.
Staff were safely recruited, and appropriate checks were completed to ensure they were suitable for their roles.

Staff received training relevant to people’s needs and told us they felt prepared to carry out their roles. One staff member said, “I felt properly inducted and the training was more than adequate.” Another told us, “I really struggled to complete my training at home, but I was offered support in the office which really helped me.” Staff told us they felt supported and were able to seek advice from the office team when needed, which meant they could deliver care safely and respond appropriately to people’s needs.
 

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 used personal protective equipment (PPE) where required and maintained good hygiene practices. Staff understood infection prevention and control practices and described following appropriate hygiene measures when providing care. One staff member told us, “We maintain infection control and do not cross contaminate.” Leaders completed spot checks to check staff followed expected practices, which supported safe care delivery. These arrangements helped reduce the risk of infection and supported people to receive care in a safe and clean environment.
 

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.
Medicines were managed safely. People and relatives told us they were satisfied with how medicines were managed. One relative told us, “Everything is documented on their phone app which we have access to, seeing it gives us peace of mind that [person] is safe.” Care plans included information about people’s medicines and how they should be supported, and staff completed medicines administration records to show medicines had been given.

Staff received training in medicines management and told us they felt confident in their roles. Competency checks and spot checks were carried out to support safe practice.
Leaders had systems in place to monitor medicines management, including regular audits and oversight, which supported safe practice and helped ensure people received their medicines as intended.