My Homecare Barnet

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 remained requires improvement.

The provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to promoting safe care to people, safely recruiting staff, and having sufficient staff who were well trained.

This service scored 53 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider told us there had not been any incidents which required investigating. There was an incident template report available which covered key points. However, when we asked the provider what would constitute an incident and what they would do, the provider could not explain this to us. We were not confident they understood their role in the event of an incident taking place.

The provider did not work well with people and health system partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not manage or monitor people’s safety. They did not make sure there was continuity of care.

The provider and the person’s relative had told us there had been no need to contact a health professional. The provider had obtained the person’s GP surgery contact details. However, the provider had not been proactive and ensured there would be continuity of care within their own service as they had no back up staff available if the only 1 member of staff employed was absent.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. The provider was not prepared to share concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider understood what constituted a safeguarding event. They knew they needed to contact the safeguarding local authority to share concerns. However, they had not obtained the safeguarding contact details including out of hours details, in preparation to safely manage such an event in a timely way. Staff knowledge was poor about what constituted potential abuse and what they must do about it to protect the person from potential harm.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider had assessed a person’s needs and involved their relative in this process. However, they had not explored the risks sufficiently to safely direct staff about how to manage these risks. The member of staff did not have a good understanding of the risks which the person they supported could experience. This meant that the person was placed at potential risk of harm.

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

The provider had ensured they had assessed the environment for associated risks, so the person was safe.

The provider did not make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff who were safely recruited. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development.

Staff were not recruited safely. A suitable reference was not obtained and verified for 2 staff. Disclosure and baring service (DBS) checks were not sourced by the provider but instead by a third party who was not a previous employer. Staff did not have complete employment histories. When staff came from overseas the provider failed to carry out the recommended checks directed by the home office. This meant the provider had not sufficiently checked staff background and character to ensure they were safe to work with people.

The provider had not ensured there was any back up or an effective contingency plan in place if the one employed member of staff was absent from work. This meant the person could be left without care in the event of an unexpected event. There was also a lack of available staff to respond to telephone enquiries at the registered office which meant people could be at risk of harm if something went wrong or a member of staff needed assistance. They told us they would address this in the future.

Staff did not receive training in all the key areas relevant to the person the service provided care to. The member of staff and registered manager had out of date training. Staff did not receive regular supervision and were not invited to team meetings in order to escalate and rectify concerns.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

The provider talked us through how they ensured they had sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) for their member of staff.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

The provider was unaware how their member of staff was administering a person their medicines meaning there was inadequate oversight of medicine administration. This person’s medicine care plan was insufficient to direct staff what they should do. There were insufficient systems in place to check this person had had their medicines safely and as prescribed.