Nation 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 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 provided care that met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider demonstrated a proactive and positive approach to managing complaints. Staff actively listened to concerns related to safety and followed an internal investigation process. Outcomes and lessons learned from incidents and complaints were documented and used to inform improvements in practice.

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care in which safety was managed or monitored. The provider kept records to show that care plans and risk assessments were in place and updated when people's needs changed. This was supported by evidence showing that each individual’s care records had been audited. This helped ensure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between services.

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. For example, staff we spoke with demonstrated good knowledge of safeguarding principles and awareness of internal and external reporting procedures, including reporting to the registered manager.

We reviewed the provider’s up-to-date safeguarding policy and noted that modern day slavery was absent from their policy. Modern slavery is a current and relevant aspect of safeguarding legislation which may have implications for staff, for example lack of awareness and understanding of modern slavery indicators, insufficient guidance on appropriate response processes and potential non-compliance with statutory requirements. Since our assessment, we have received assurances from the provider, and the policy has been updated.

The provider worked well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff we spoke with knew the people who used the service well. Staff were able to provide examples on individual communication needs and talked about indicators of when a person may be in distress, and how they would respond.

The provider had risk assessments in place to address identified risks to people and plans were developed to inform staff how to address these. People and/or their relatives were involved in developing risk assessments and care plans.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in people’s homes. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The registered manager informed us that risk assessments of people’s home are conducted prior to the commencement of the care package. This process was undertaken to ensure that the environment was safe for staff members, but also to ensure people were being discharged from hospital to safe home environments.

The provider worked well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.Staff we spoke appeared well-trained and demonstrated awareness of their duties of care. Those we spoke with expressed satisfaction with their working arrangements, noting that management was flexible, supportive, and consistently responsive to rota requests. Staff confirmed they take breaks between callouts and were comfortable with their fluctuating weekly schedules.

While the provider showed commitment to staff development, there were inconsistencies between the training matrix and individual certificates, which made it difficult to verify training compliance. Mental health support is included in the provider’s Statement of Purpose (SOP), and although certificates were submitted, they were general workplace-focused rather than tailored to the specific needs of people using the service. The provider sent assurances of staff training compliance following the assessment.

We checked staff recruitment files and saw that all appropriate processes and checks were in place. The service conducted enhanced disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks, which provided information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helped the service make safer recruitment decisions. Supervision records showed all staff had regular supervision meetings with the service manager.

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. Staff were given appropriate personal and protective equipment (PPE), and we saw PPE stored safely in the office. Relatives we spoke with told us care staff wore appropriate PPE, for example gloves, when attending to personal care, supporting with feeding and medication administration.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff members were trained in medicines awareness, with their competencies re-assessed every 6 months. Medications were documented in people’s care records, and any allergies were clearly indicated. Additionally, medication audits were carried out on a quarterly basis by management to ensure compliance and address any concerns.