Whell 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 66 (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.

There had been no recent safety concerns reported. Staff were aware of what to do if they came across any potential safety issues. The registered manager had learnt lessons from other aspects of the business.

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.

Records showed healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care in a timely manner. All health and social care professionals we contacted said staff followed any guidance put in place for people’s care.

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.

There had been no recent safeguarding incidents. Staff were able to describe the steps they would take if they had concerns about a person. People were being cared for in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The provider did not always document risks appropriately. However, staff did provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments did not always demonstrate that people were involved in their creation and were not person-centred. However, appropriate mitigation was in place to reduce risks to people. We found no evidence to suggest people were harmed by this.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment, they did use equipment safely.

There were no risk assessments in place to support staff who were working in the community. Following feedback, the registered manager began putting suitable assessments in place to help ensure staff safety. Appropriate assessments were in place to support people’s use of equipment at home.

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.

There were plans in place to ensure people received care when staff were unwell. People told us that staff always visited when expected. A relative said, “Prior to Christmas the manger rang and asked if I wanted them in over the holiday period. I said yes please and it was arranged without any difficulty. No problem at all. Christmas day they came in as usual at the usual time with a smile and a chat.”

Staff were recruited safely and were supported by regular supervisions with the management team.

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.

People told us that staff wore suitable PPE and helped them keep their homes clean. Where people were at inherent risk of infection, such as people who rely on catheters, processes were in place to reduce that risk.

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

Medicine records were not always in line with best practice guidance. The registered manager rectified this immediately once it was brought to their attention. People felt well supported with their medicines management. Staff competencies were checked annually. The provider carried out medicines audit to check for any issues, none had been identified.