Complete Home Care Sussex 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 our last inspection 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 75 (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.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and reported consistently. Staff were clear about when they needed to report an incident and were confident that appropriate actions would be taken. A staff member told us about a person who had fallen, they described the actions they took at the time and what happened subsequently to reduce the risk of further falls. People and their relatives told us they felt safe because the staff were proactive in identifying risks and safety concerns. One relative said, “The carers were the ones who told me who to contact to get the hoist. They give me direction, they are knowledgeable and I can pick their brains.”

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.

People told us they received a consistent service from a small team of care staff who provided good continuity of care. One person said, “They are very reliable, they have never missed a call. It is the best care service I have had.” A relative told us, “They let us know who is coming, they never miss a visit and always turn up smiling.” The provider used an electronic care monitoring system to support care planning and to ensure people received a consistent service. Staff described effective communication systems and said this helped them to maintain good continuity. One staff member said, “When a person’s mobility deteriorated, staff communicated this quickly so other staff knew what to expect and were prepared for the next visit.” Records were updated when people’s needs changed and this supported staff to provide care safely.

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.

Staff had received training and demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities for safeguarding people. One staff member told us how they had reported safeguarding concerns and explained how care visits were increased to ensure the person’s safety. People told us the care staff helped them to feel safe. One person said, “The carers do make me feel safe, they always ask if I am alright and check I’m ok.” Records of safeguarding incidents confirmed staff had reported concerns appropriately.

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.

Risks to people were identified, assessed and monitored. Some people had specific risks associated with health conditions including dementia, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and other long term and progressive diseases. Risks assessments were detailed and provided the guidance staff needed to support people safely. People and their relatives told us they had confidence in staff skills. One person said, “They are professionals, and know what they are doing.” A relative said, “The staff absolutely take safety seriously and always leave (person’s name) safe.”

Staff had a balanced and proportionate approach to managing risks and supporting people in the way they preferred. We observed how a staff member reported a person was not at home when they visited. The provider had a protocol to guide staff if they were unable to gain entry at a planned visit. Staff had developed a personalised approach for a person who was known to often go out when their care visit was due. Staff were flexible in their approach and returned later to assure themselves of the person’s safety. This meant the person’s choices were respected and the provider could assure themselves of the person’s safety.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

The provider identified and assessed risks in people’s homes to ensure their safety and the safety of the care staff. People and their relatives told us staff were mindful of safety. One person said, “They (staff) follow safe procedures. Always leave the key in the key safe when leaving and make sure things are switched off.” Staff explained how they identified and managed risks. Examples included identifying a trip hazard within a person’s home, the staff member supported the person to understand the risks and moved the item to a safer position. Another staff member described noticing an unsafe electric socket which was overloaded and smoking. They explained how this had been made safe to reduce the risk of a fire. Records included environmental risk assessments and considered solutions to reduce risks such as additional equipment.

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 told us they received a reliable service with regular staff who arrived on time and stayed for the duration they expected. One person said, “They (staff) have enough time. I never feel rushed. They always ask if there is anything else they can do before leaving.” Another person said, “They do not cut the visit short when they have finished, they will sit and talk to me.”

Staff told us there were enough staff to cover all the care visits and they had adequate travel time between calls. One staff member said, “The calls are scheduled well and we have enough time, so we don’t have to rush. That means we can make sure everything is left clean and tidy and we can have a chat with the person.”

People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff and had confidence in their skills. One person said, “I feel confident in the carer’s (staff) skills. For example, they understand dementia, they know not to push things.” Records showed staff had received the training and support they needed to be effective in their roles. One staff member said, “I have a yearly appraisal, refresher training and spot checks, there is a lot of support for staff.”

The provider had robust systems for recruitment to ensure staff were suitable to work with people. Staff described receiving induction training and shadowing experienced staff when they joined the service.

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 and their relatives said staff were mindful of infection control procedures. One person said, “The staff always wash their hands and wear gloves and aprons for personal care. They are very careful.” Staff were observed collecting Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) from the office and told us they had access to the supplies they needed. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control and gave examples to demonstrate how they would reduce risks of spreading infection.

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.

People were receiving their medicine safely as prescribed. People told us staff were knowledgeable about their medicines and supported them by talking to their GP or pharmacist if necessary. One person told us, “They do all my medicine, they have been very good.”

Staff had received training and told us they were assessed as competent before administering medicines. The provider’s electronic system included Medicine Administration Record (MAR) charts. There were systems in place to monitor MAR charts to check that people were receiving their medicines in line with their prescription and that records were accurate.

Some people were receiving their medicines covertly (without their knowledge). Decisions to administer covert medicines had been taken in people’s best interest and were recorded in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.