Angel Care North Ltd

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 the last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 management team had created a strong, proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff actively listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events, with lessons learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The management team used themed supervision to develop staff skills, and accidents and incidents were consistently reviewed to identify learning and improve the service. This approach supported prompt responses to safeguarding concerns. Staff described regular meetings where concerns, changes in people’s needs and safeguarding matters were discussed, and said they could contribute ideas for improvement. Feedback from surveys was also reviewed and acted upon, with a new template introduced to better record actions and outcomes. A staff member said, “[Registered manager] operates an open-door policy which means she's easily accessible and not have to speak to different hierarchies before getting to your concerns resolved. I find that things work better this way as issues are resolvedfaster.”

Staff worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care. Staff worked with healthcare professionals when people’s needs changed and took timely action to obtain additional support or equipment. The provider worked with services including district nurses, occupational therapists, speech and language professionals, social workers, safeguarding teams and other specialist healthcare professionals. People and relatives described receiving support from regular staff who knew their needs well, providing continuity and consistency. A relative said, “They are absolutely brilliant. Great rapport has been built over the years within her team. They take such good care of [person’s name], and they all have our complete trust.

Staff worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. When incidents occurred, staff completed a full investigation and took a proportionate, balanced approach when dealing with them. Staff had training and a good understanding of what to do to make sure people were protected from harm or abuse. Records showed safeguarding incidents were investigated and lessons learned were shared with the team. Staff understood when Court of Protection (CoP) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations would need to be sought and what to do if there were conditions imposed.

Staff worked with the person to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet the person’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled them to do the things that mattered to them. Risk assessments and care planning were completed with the person and families, reflecting individual needs, communication styles and preferences. Staff understood behaviour as communication and used proactive approaches to reduce distress and prevent escalation. Risks were balanced with opportunities for independence, community access and meaningful activity. A staff member said, “All new clients are involved in developing their own care and we always explain that we will do what suits them as long as it is safe for both them and our staff.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Environmental risks were assessed and managed in the person’s homes, with adaptations made to support mobility, comfort and safety. Equipment and assistive technology were introduced following specialist input, and further adaptations were planned to increase autonomy.

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 the person’s needs. Staffing levels and skill mix were matched to the person’s needs, with a stable and consistent staffing model. A staff member said, “We are a team of four and there is enough staff to be able to support people effectively.” Recruitment practices were meeting requirements. The suitability of staff was checked not only at the pre-interview and interview stage but during the induction training. The provider promoted a learning culture and ensured staff had access to a wide range of training. Staff supervision sessions were completed in line with the provider's policy.

The management team assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff followed infection prevention and control protocols, including appropriate use of personal protective equipment and regular audits.

Staff made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met the person’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff who administered medicines had the appropriate training and competency checks. The management team systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.