Alexandras Community Care Truro

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

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. This meant that people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider had made improvements and was no longer in breach of regulation in relation to the management of safeguarding incidents and safe recruitment processes..

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.

Following our previous inspection, senior managers had delivered presentations, focused on safeguarding and learning from incidents to all staff. Staff and managers had found this training helpful and had a better understanding of their roles in ensuring people were protected from harm. Staff morale had improved, and team meetings were organised to give all staff an opportunity to contribute. Staff told us, "Morale is a lot better, it was hard. The last few team meetings have been amazing."

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

Safeguarding alerts were being submitted to the Local Authority and Care Quality Commission (CQC) promptly and appropriately. A designated safeguarding lead was responsible for reviewing, investigating and reporting any allegations received. A software system had been implemented to monitor investigation processes, to ensure safeguarding actions were not missed, and actions were followed up. This kept people safe by ensuring concerns were fully investigated and learning identified.

The provider’s safeguarding policy had been updated to include a clear escalation protocol with defined responsibilities. Safeguarding was included as an agenda item at staff meetings and discussed in supervisions. Staff spot checks had been redesigned and focused on safeguarding.

Records of weekly review meetings showed safeguarding concerns, complaints and incidents had been promptly investigated and areas of learning or improvement identified.

Staff told us they understood safeguarding procedures. Staff said, “Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility and I actively safeguard” and “Safeguarding is very important and I would contact the manager or Police. It 100% feels that if a safeguarding concern was raised it would be acted upon.” A system had been developed so staff could anonymously raise safety concerns.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

New staff were recruited safely, and appropriate background checks were completed. References from previous employers were taken up and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were completed before staff began work. A senior manager had completed an audit of staff files, any identified gaps in recruitment information had been followed up.

Before starting work newly employed staff completed an induction. They told us they were well supported during this process and were able to request extra support if they lacked confidence. Staff received regular supervisions.

Since our last inspection staff had completed relevant training. This included training to support people with specific health needs and people with a learning disability and autistic people. Records showed all staff had face-to-face training in core areas, for example in safeguarding awareness, manual handling and medication administration. Some specialist training was carried out in response to people’s specific needs. This included awareness training in areas such as catheter care and Percutaneous Endoscopy Gastronomy (PEG) feeding.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. No planned care visit had been missed and records showed staff normally arrived on time. If necessary, the service made arrangements to provide extra staff during periods of unexpected staff absence.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.