Solution Care 247 Northamptonshire

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had implemented a system since our last assessment to ensure accidents and incidents were effectively recorded and themes and trends were monitored and identified. We saw that following the review of an incident there had been a change in the plan of care delivery which had been effective in preventing further incidents. People told us they would be confident of action being taken in safety incidents a relative said, they had reported an incident which could have lead to an infection incident, they said the registered manager acted promptly to prevent a reoccurrence. Staff understood the accident and incident reporting process and the importance of accurate and detailed recording of incidents. One staff member said, “Incidents or accidents are recorded using the official reporting system; I ensure that relevant details like date, time, place and person involved are recorded, incidents are investigated thoroughly and clearly and mainly focus on the root causes." Another staff member said, “Management communicates clearly about outcomes and actions are taken to prevent recurrence, debriefs are usually conducted through team meetings or one-to-one discussions with senior staff to reflect and learn from incidents."

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 provider had ensured that a good, clear level of information about people’s needs was available for hand over to other services in an emergency. People or their relatives also had access to the electronic system where they could access their own care plans and care notes that showed any progress or deterioration in people’s condition which could be shared with other health care professionals, for example, during reviews or appointments. A relative told us they had records in the home that could support an emergency admission. A staff member told us that, care needs were well recorded in people’s information, including people's health and care needs including, want and wishes and their communication needs, they understood the importance of good communication during transition.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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. People told us that they had been involved in assessing risk and planning their own care. Positive risk taking was well supported. A person told us that they could cancel their care when they wanted to and the provider supported this freedom of choice, they told us this flexibility enabled them to partake in activities and trips outside of their home, this was important to them.

Risk assessments contained a good level of detail to mitigate risk. Some of the information we found in risk assessments was generalised. For example, one person’s risk assessment included risks to them while they took part in swimming, staff were not supporting the person with swimming. We discussed with the registered manager about ensuring that information was specific to the persons needs to avoid confusing information for staff. This had not impacted on the person as staff had an accurate overview of individuals risk and planned care via an app. A staff member told us they had time to read the overview regularly as it kept them informed of changes.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People had individual environmental risk assessments in pace, this included guidance for staff on any fire or evacuation risks, cut off points for gas and electricity and managing tripping hazards such us pets. Staff had received training in fire safety and familiarised themselves with the nearest safe route out for people in case of an emergency. Staff understood the importance of regular checks of equipment they might use for moving and handling to keep people safe. A staff member told us, “I help monitor the safety of equipment by checking it regularly before and after use to make sure it is clean, working properly, and safe. If I notice any faults or damage, I report it straight away to my manager. I also raise concerns if I see anything unsafe in a person’s home, such as loose wires or broken furniture. Actions are always taken quickly to fix or replace unsafe items, and I follow up to make sure everything has been made safe."

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe. At the time of the assessment there was no one being supported with prescribed medicines. However, care notes evidenced that 1 person was occasionally being supported to apply over the counter moisturizing creams. There was no risk assessment or homely remedy protocols in place for this. This had not impacted on the person and the provider actioned this during the assessment, this would need to be continued and embedded into practice.