Hope Care Support 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 require improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Staff listened to concerns about safety and reported safety events. We saw three incidents had been reported in the previous 12 months. These people were no longer supported by the agency; however, these were documented, investigated and actions taken to reduce the risks of the occurring. These were then discussed among the staff team to enable them to reflect on any possible lessons learned.

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 registered manager demonstrated how assessments used a variety of information from different sources such as local authority assessments, health and social care professionals, the person themselves or their relatives.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the specific safety needs of the people they supported. They told us how they were involved in regular reviews and assessments and ensured they recorded the care and support accurately to support those reviews. This helped to ensure that care was planned effectively and risks were identified and managed from the beginning and throughout the care being provided.

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.

People were safe and comfortable with the care and support provided by staff.

In the past twelve months there had been no safeguarding concerns raised either by the registered manager or other professionals. Staff were clear and described what action they would take if concerns arose. The registered manager was clear that if staff raised concerns, they knew who the partner agencies were to refer to and to support to investigate and resolve concerns. They had also completed safeguarding adults (Level 2) training to enhance their understanding and responsiveness to safeguarding incidents.

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.

Care records showed that risks were identified and assessed and regularly reviewed with people which considered people’s personal care and health related needs.

Spot checks were carried out where the registered manager visited unannounced and observed the care provided. This also gave them the opportunity to talk with the person so they could give their views about their care and whether they felt it supported them safely and enabled them to manage their own care and associated risks. Risks are then reviewed during care plan reviews and supervision sessions with staff to discuss in more depth how to manage those care needs. One relative said, “They have done a lot of work in the last 8 months, we can understand a lot of some of the struggles that [person] has and how they support those, so it has been very positive.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Prior to care being provided an assessment of people’s home environment was carried out. This assessed potential risks to staff and people from delivering care in a person’s home. Areas assessed included areas such as potential trip hazards, gas, water and electricity shut off points, fire prevention and general environmental risks.

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.

Care records referenced that people benefitted from familiar care staff providing their care and structured routines. We saw that care was provided by a small group of familiar carers at the times agreed, who stayed for the planned duration of the call. Staff would frequently carry out additional household tasks where time allowed and would spend time talking with people about things that mattered to them. There were no missed or significantly late calls and people were provided with a rota of who they could expect on any given day. One relative said, “We have a good carer who spends a good amount of time each day and that makes [person] happy.

The provider carried out pre-employment checks including Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS). They also looked at people’s employment history and explored any gaps whilst also seeking and verifying references to ensure staff were suitable to work with people. Where staff were employed from overseas, the provider ensured that those staff had the required rights to work in place and carried out robust pre-employment checks to ensure they were safe to work with people.

We were provided with training records for the three staff employed. All staff had completed the care certificate which is the minimum training requirement. Staff had undertaken specific training in relation to learning disability autism training, sensory impairments and diabetes management. A training record was maintained to show the date that any update and refresher training is due.

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 registered manager carried out spot checks which were unannounced. These specifically observed staff providing care and checked that personal protective equipment [PPE] was used and infection prevention working practises were followed.

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.

An assessment was carried out to determine the level of support required, and to note any allergies or risks from the medicines prescribed. People’s preferences were acknowledged and staff assessed how independent people could be with managing their medicines. We looked at the medication administration records (MARs) records for the person who required assistance to take their medicines. These were detailed, documenting when the medicines were to be administered and instructed staff of the side effects of each medicine so they could monitor for any adverse effects. No gaps were found on these records, which the provider reviewed to monitor their accuracy.

Staff were observed regularly to ensure they remained competent to handle and administers medicines, and we were shown records to confirm these observations occurred.

Where people are prescribed ‘as required’ medicines, further detail needs to be added to the record to instruct staff how to identify when these are required.