Embrace Home Care Limited

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 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 an initiative-taking 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. People and staff were encouraged and supported to raise concerns about risks to safety, and they knew action would be taken to keep everyone safe. People felt confident that they would be treated with compassion and understanding, and would not be blamed, or treated negatively if they did so. A staff member told us that they would contact the manager if they saw something that they were concerned about and were confident that they would get a positive response.

The provider collaborated 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 service worked with people and those close to them to establish their plan of care and comprehensive individual transition plans, prior to the person moving between services to eliminate any risks and to ensure the person received continuity of care.

Needs assessments had been completed in collaboration with people and their families. This information was used to complete plans and assessments to avoid people having to provide the same information multiple times.

Staff had initial meetings with people they were due to support to make sure that they were a good match. They were given information about people’s health and care needs.

The provider collaborated 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 safeguarding training and knew who to contact if they were concerned about potential signs of abuse.

All staff had received training in both adult and child safeguarding.

The provider collaborated 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.

Risk assessments had been completed where necessary and mitigation strategies had been recorded. Staff were given time to read these before supporting people and any changes were communicated to them.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. One person told us that they had recently moved into a new house and the provider had been out to complete an environmental risk assessment. Environmental and COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) assessments had been completed for locations where people were being supported in their own homes.

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.

Staff had not completed learning disability and autism communication training, the registered manager arranged for the staff team to complete this after our visit. There was no impact on people as the provider did not support people whose primary need was a learning disability or autism.

There were appropriate staffing levels and skill mix to make sure people received consistently safe, good quality care that met their needs. When people received one-to-one support, staff skills and experience were matched to the needs of the person.

People experienced continuity of care, each person had a small team of individuals with which they were familiar. One member of staff told us, “I had a really good induction; I was able to have two or three shadowing opportunities with the people I was going to be supporting.” And “We have sit-down supervisions, I’ve had really good feedback, the manager comes out and does spot checks too.”

Recruitment files had the required information including DBS checks, references, application forms, health questionnaires, and a recent photo. Gaps in employment were recorded but some were recorded in full years instead of dates. The registered manager addressed this at the time of our visit.

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.

The provider supported people on a one-to-one basis in their own homes. Staff were trained in food safety level 1 2 and in infection prevention and control. The provider supplied all personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons, and they were aware of why, how, and when to use it.

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.

Staff were trained in medicines administration. Staff had access to the management of medicines policy, the staff we spoke to reported that they had read it.

People each had medicines risk assessments and care plans.

One staff member told us, “We all get witnessed administering medication by a manager, they ask us about safe storage and how to go through the list of medicines. We use an EMAR (electronic medication administration record).”

We were shown a completed example of a 6-monthly medication competency form.

No person receiving support was prescribed ‘as and when required’ medication or used homely remedies at the time of our visit but policies were in place for these if required.

The registered manager conducted weekly medication audits.