All For You Home Care Limited

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.

Staff listened to concerns about safety and reported safety events. One staff member told us, “I have supported a person who had an incident. One time a client had a fall. I made sure they was safe and stayed calm. I followed the correct procedure, informed my manager and completed the report. I also made sure they got medical help if needed.”

In another example, All For You Home Care Ltd supported a person who due to their condition was at a significant risk of hospital admission. Staff supported a person to transition to the service by gradually understanding their support needs and exploring opportunities with them. Staff gradually expanded the person’s routine to include a wider range of community-based activities such as football matches, bowling, and arcade visits, while maintaining elements of familiarity to reduce anxiety and support engagement. Following deep analysis of the person’s needs, staff reports positive risk-taking was encouraged, supported by clear communication, structured planning, and consistent staffing, enabling the person to develop confidence and increase independence within the community. This approach resulted in a significant and sustained reduction in behavioural incidents, alongside a marked improvement in engagement, emotional wellbeing, and overall quality of life. The person became more willing to participate in activities, developed increased confidence in accessing the community, and began to make choices regarding their daily routine.

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.

There was documentation available in people’s care records for staff and external health agencies which detailed key information relevant to people in the event of needing to move between services.This included care passports designed to be used for all people within a variety of care settings. Care passports included information about people’s support needs and any reasonable adjustments they required.

Assessment processes were in place before support commenced. The registered manager demonstrated how holistic pre-admission assessments combined information from local authority assessments, health and social care professionals and the person themselves.

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.

The provider had policies and procedures in place which supported effective and timely safeguarding. Staff demonstrated they understood abuse, recognised potential signs, and knew what actions to take if they suspected abuse had occurred. A staff member told us, “I would report it and wait for the manger’s instructions. If nothing is done to protect the client I will take it further to CQCor safeguarding.”

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.

The provider assessed and planned for risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. They discussed these with the people and where appropriate with their relatives. There were comprehensive and detailed assessments relating to people’s care, personal needs, health conditions and any other identified risks. These included plans to help reduce risk. There were guides for staff on how to manage people’s specific conditions and how to use specific care equipment. Risk assessments and plans were regularly reviewed and updated. People and their relatives explained they felt risks were well managed and people were supported to be independent, when this was safe, and to make informed choices about risk taking.

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

The provider assessed potential risks from people’s living environment and put measures in place to reduce these and keep people safe. They reviewed these arrangements at regular intervals to make sure the measures put in place to reduce risks, remained appropriate. The environment was also assessed to support staff safety, including consideration of safe parking areas during care calls.

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.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives regarding staffing levels and timing of their calls. One person’s relative told us, “This is the 3rd company we have used, and this one is by far the best even though we still have some issues especially with the timings of the calls.”

We reviewed a sample of electronic monitoring logs used by the provider and we found no anomalies suggesting missed or late visits.

Staff told us they have enough time to complete the calls, and they did not feel rushed. A member of staff told us, “I have enough time to complete tasks during visits. I get a break and my availability is always taken into account. I work around my children and husband which many companies do not offer. I ensure every client receives the attention they deserve without feeling rushed. If I am rushed or late, I always tell my manager who reassures me and will inform clients for me. We have taxis to take us around if we are late or miss the bus or unable to get to a place on public transport.”

The provider used safe recruitment checks which were completed prior to staff starting with the service. Recruitment checks included staff identity checks, references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This helps providers make safe recruitment decisions. Senior staff completed ‘observed staff practice’ checks on staff to ensure they continued to be safe to support people and staff received supervisions to discuss any learning opportunities.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives regarding infection prevention control. Some people and their relatives told us that Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was not consistently used. A relative told us, “They wear only gloves and no aprons."

Staff received training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and how to work in line with the provider’s IPC policy and best practice guidance. Staff told us they had access to personal protective equipment when they needed it and were trained in how to use and dispose of this safely.

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. Staff received medicines training. Where medicines were prescribed to be taken ‘when required’ there was personalised information to guide staff. Regular audits were carried out to identify any concerns.

The management team understood their roles and responsibility regarding STOMP, which stands for Stopping Over Medication of People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People. They were aware of the importance of ensuring medicines were only prescribed when it was necessary, and regular reviews were conducted to support the wellbeing of people affected by this initiative.