Folkestone Home Care

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 78 (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.

Although there were very few incidents or accidents, there were robust systems to monitor the delivery of care and ensure these were identified. Staff were confident how to report incidents, and there was a collaborative process to learn from these and make suggestions as a team on how they could be prevented in the future. There were strong systems to investigate, analyse and report incidents where necessary.

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

There were strong systems to ensure people were safe at all times, including where transferring between services such as from hospital back into their own homes or between different care providers. We heard one example where a person had been discharged home from hospital with very poor mobility and a lack of information on how their needs had changed. The provider mobilised immediate 24-hour care support whilst their needs were assessed, and a more suitable package of care arranged to meet their needs. Because they had a complex medical aid in place, finding another provider able to meet their needs proved challenging. Therefore, the registered manager arranged for the local supplier representative to undertake training in partnership with a local care home, so any delays to them receiving the safe care they needed were removed.

Leaders were clear that they would not take on any packages of care if they could not meet people’s needs, and that staff received an extensive shadowing period to understand how to support people safely. Where people moved from the service into the care of other agencies, the provider were committed to a safe and compassionate handover of the care. The registered manager told us “We are committed to a safe handover. One person we support needs staff who are knowledgeable about their body language as they cannot communicate well, so we will be working with any provider to show them how to do this.”

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to fully understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff had a clear focus 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.

There was a positive safeguarding culture at the service where people and staff felt empowered to raise any concerns about the safety and welfare of people. Although there had been no recent safeguarding events, staff had received training and could clearly explain the action they would take if they were worried that a person was being exposed to abuse or neglect. One staff member told us, “If I saw this I would go directly to the registered manager, and together we would have a collaborative conversation about what we need to do. I would report this straight away and we feel able to challenge each other if we see something wrong.” People felt safe being cared for by Folkestone Home Care. One relative told us, “'My relative feels safe with the staff as they are all regular. She loves them.” Another person told us, “Yes I do feel safe, very much so.”

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.

There was strong management of risks posed to people, which was underpinned by clear guidance for informing staff how each person’s health and care needs should be managed to ensure their welfare and quality of life. For example, where people were at greater risk of injury and required careful procedures with moving and handling, there was clear guidance and extensive shadowing before staff were allowed to undertake this. Where people had skin that may break down causing pain or discomfort, staff had guidance on when they should apply protective creams and how they should monitor people’s skin integrity regularly. If people had wider social risks such as around social isolation or poor mental health, the provider worked closely with people and families to identify solutions such as resources to communicate their emotions or enabling them to participate in their local communities.

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

There were detailed assessment of people’s home environments to ensure they were safe to work in, and that any hazards to people or staff were documented and addressed where possible to allow people to continue to live safely. One relative told us, “Yes the manager assessed our home environment. She mentioned about an extra handrail for the stairs as an extra precaution, and a bath lift chair for my relative’s safety and the staff.” Where people might like to stay with others who were important to them such as family members, this was enabled by the provider who would also conduct risk assessments of this environment. This allowed people to spend time with the people they loved safely, as their care was able to follow them. One person told us, “When I've needed care in other locations like with family, the manager checked and wrote risk assessments for there as well.”

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.

People were supported by a passionate team of staff who received continual supervision and support which empowered them to deliver a high level of care. They had received training pertinent to people’s needs, and an extensive shadowing period to ensure they could support people safely. One staff member told us “I get really worried about meeting new people, but here you get as much shadowing as you need. Everything is so easy.”

There were a small number of areas where training had not been completed or had expired, but we found staff had a very good knowledge and there was no impact on care delivery. For example, a couple of staff had outdated catheter training, but could explain in great detail the concerns they would look out for in somebody with a catheter and how they would escalate them. The provider confirmed they would review the minor gaps in training identified. There were systems to regularly review the competence of staff in high-risk tasks such as moving and handling or medication. People told us how impressed they were with the ability of staff. One relative told us, “The staff seem to know a lot about dementia. It seems that they are given training in the needs that my relative has, they're very adaptable and always make sure he has the support he requires.”

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 and knowledgeable about how to protect people from the risk of infection, including through appropriate hand hygiene and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). They treated people’s homes with respect and ensured they were kept clean. Staff supported to people to manage their own personal care with dignity and independence to keep them safe from infections. One relative told us, “They wear PPE all the time that they're there. They get their gloves and apron on as soon as they arrive. They change their PPE between doing personal care and preparing food.” Another person explained, “They are conscious of infection prevention particularly with any medical equipment we use. This is really important to me that they do so I am happy.”

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.

The majority of people were able to manage their medication independently, and were supported to do so by the staff who cared for them. Where medication was administered, it was done so by staff who were trained and competent to do so safely. Medications were clearly documented and there was robust guidance of how they should be administered in line with people’s personal preferences. There were regular checks to ensure this remained the case, and if any errors occurred these were investigated and appropriate learning taken to prevent them from happening again.