Aldanat Care

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 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.

At our previous inspection, we found staff did not always follow guidance contained within people's risk assessments.

Most relatives reported that staff listened to their concerns and responded in an open and transparent manner, demonstrating that feedback was appropriately acknowledged and addressed. For example, 1 relative commented, “If I ever do raise anything with the staff or manager, they come back straight away. I mean, everything’s dealt with.” Another relative told us, “Yes, the support from the staff team is good. They always contact me and update me about any changes. They also ask for my input and suggestions”. ”One relative told us they did not always feel listened to. They said that although the service initially acted on their suggestions, staff later reverted to their previous ways of working. We do feel the new service manager is making positive changers”.

The provider systematically reviewed accidents and incidents to identify patterns, trends and underlying causes. Learning was communicated to staff to mitigate risks and support continuous improvement in practice.

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 service completed pre-assessments to determine whether people’s needs could be met safely. Records showed people and their relatives were involved in the process.

Care plans and risk assessments were developed following assessment and reflected people’s needs, preferences and identified risks.

Managers briefed staff on people’s support needs and gave them access to care plans and risk assessments, helping them deliver personalised care.

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.

Relatives told us they received safeguarding information before support began and understood how to recognise and report concerns. One relative said, “Whenever concerns have arisen, staff have worked with the local authority safeguarding team and with us as a family. We have found the management team very responsive in taking action, and the concern has not occurred again.” Another relative said, “Staff are busy but always make time for me. They are approachable, and I feel my relative is safe.”

The provider had systems and processes in place to protect people from abuse and neglect. Policies and procedures outlined how staff should identify, report and respond to safeguarding concerns, helping them understand their responsibilities.

Safeguarding concerns were recorded and referred to the local authority where required. However, one concern was not reported promptly. The provider had identified this shortfall and shared learning with staff to reduce the risk of recurrence.

Managers completed spot checks to monitor care delivery and ensure staff provided safe support in line with people’s care plans and risk assessments. The registered manager said, “We carry out a range of checks, including during evenings and weekends, to ensure staff support people appropriately and keep them safe.”

We saw that the provider audited safeguarding practice to identify risks and areas for improvement. Audit tools had been reviewed to reflect statutory requirements and best practice.

Training records and staff feedback showed staff had received safeguarding training and understood how to recognise, report and escalate concerns. Staff knew to inform managers and contact the police where a person was at immediate risk. For example, one member of staff said, “I would report concerns to my manager, and if the person was in immediate danger, I would call the police.”

The provider ensured that legal authorisations to deprive people of their liberty were in place where required. Staff understood and complied with the associated conditions, which were monitored and reviewed regularly. At the time of the inspection, there were no outstanding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications.

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.

The provider assessed and managed risks in a person-centred way. People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in identifying and reviewing risks. Records showed risks relating to falls, environmental hazards and community access were managed to support people’s safety and independence.

Risk assessments informed detailed care plans, which gave staff clear guidance on supporting people safely. Plans reflected people’s needs, routines, preferences and relevant medical history, while promoting their independence and wellbeing.

Since the last inspection, the service has introduced a new digital system. This enabled staff to access and update information promptly, supported more consistent record-keeping and strengthened management oversight of people’s care and support.

Staff told us they were involved in assessing and reviewing risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing. One staff member said, “My manager updates us about changes in people’s care needs during staff meetings and supervision. I am also fully involved in completing risk assessments.”

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

Managers assessed environmental risks in people’s homes and worked with them to reduce identified risks. Staff were informed of risks and any changes, supporting safe and consistent care.

People were supported to access assessments for assistive technology to help maintain their safety.

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.

The provider followed safe recruitment procedures. Records confirmed that identity, references, health declarations and Disclosure and Barring Service checks were completed before staff started work. One staff risk assessment did not contain sufficient detail to demonstrate how the provider had ensured the person was safe to work at the service. The registered manager explained the actions that had already been completed, although these had not been recorded in the risk assessment. They immediately updated the record and sent it to the inspector.

Staff had the qualifications, skills and experience required for their roles. They received supervision, training and development to maintain their competence and deliver safe, person-centred care.

Training records showed staff had completed relevant training, including safeguarding adults, infection prevention and control, and risk assessment. This supported staff to provide safe care and respond appropriately to identified risks.

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 had access to hand gel and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), including aprons and gloves, and were expected to use these in line with guidance. Procedures supported a timely and coordinated response to infection outbreaks. Training records showed staff had completed infection prevention and control training.

The provider completed infection prevention and control audits and spot checks in people’s homes to monitor staff practice. This provided assurance that procedures were followed and supported the consistent delivery of safe care.

We observed that people’s homes were clean. Staff supported people to maintain a clean environment, helping to reduce infection risks. One staff member told us, “We support people to keep their homes clean and tidy, helping to protect them from infection control risks. We also use personal protective equipment, such as gloves and aprons, and wash our hands after supporting people with personal care.”

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.

We reviewed people’s medicines administration records (MARs). Records were complete and clearly documented, providing assurance that medicines were administered and recorded in line with the provider’s procedures.

During the inspection, staff demonstrated that they knew how to access information about the potential side effects of people’s medicines. However, given the number of medicines prescribed to some people, we identified that staff needed quicker access to this information. We discussed this with the manager, who reviewed the arrangements and immediately implemented a system enabling staff to promptly access information about possible side effects.

The provider completed regular audits of medicines administration, handling and storage. When concerns were identified, action was taken and findings were shared with staff to reduce the risk of recurrence.

Senior staff assessed staff competency to administer medicines. This provided assurance that staff had the knowledge and skills to administer medicines safely and follow the provider’s procedures.

Staff understood the principles of STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People). They understood that psychotropic medicines should only be used for the right reason, at the lowest effective dose and for the shortest possible time, with regular reviews to reduce the risk of inappropriate prescribing and support people’s quality of life.