Care Matters (Homecare) Limited Stockton

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 took action to address them. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. People told us staff kept them safe.

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. The service had recently worked in partnership with commissioners to manage changes to how people were supported, and had minimised disruption to people while this was done.

People were safeguarded from abuse. Systems were in place to report, investigate and respond to concerns and staff received training on these. One staff member told us, “If I saw something that concerns me I would report it.”

Risks to people were assessed and monitored. Care plans contained guidance to staff on how to keep people safe. People told us staff had the knowledge and skills to keep them safe. One person said, “They are good, they know what I need and how to do it all.”

The provider monitored potential risks in the care environment. People were supported in their own homes and the provider was not responsible for these. However, care plans still contained assessments on any obvious risks to people and staff arising in the care environment.

Systems were not always effective in ensuring safe and effective staffing. Most people commented that staff generally arrived on time, but some said call times could be late and impacted on time sensitive tasks such as medicine administration. The provider’s records of when staff arrived and left calls was not always accurate, which meant it was not always clear whether calls were taking place as scheduled. We spoke with the registered manager about this, who said call logging software would be reviewed. Staff were safely recruited into the service, with a range of pre-employment checks taking place. Regular training, supervision and appraisal took place to ensure staff were supported in their roles. One person told us, “They are trained enough to help me.”

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. Staff were trained in infection control and had access to personal protective equipment.

Medicines were safely managed and most of the time people received these when needed. One person said, “The carers do my medication and there has never been a problem.” Care plans contained guidance on how to manage people’s medicines and staff received training and support with this. For some time sensitive medicines it was not always clear from records whether they had been administered as required. There was no evidence that people had been harmed. The registered manager said they would review this to ensure calls to people were suitable for such medicines.