Oiza Healthcare 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 recorded and reviewed all incidents and complaints, documentation showed that appropriate and timely action was taken in response. Although no incidents had occurred that required reporting to external professionals, the registered manager understood when this would be necessary to ensure openness and transparency. Effective systems and processes were in place to support staff, people using the service, and those important to them to raise concerns. These arrangements demonstrated a positive learning culture where feedback and incidents were used to improve the service.

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.

Initial assessments were carried out with each person and, where appropriate, those important to them. These assessments were holistic and person‑centred. Detailed care plans were developed to reflect each person’s specific care requirements. Where appropriate, these could be shared with other professionals, such as during hospital admissions, to promote continuity and consistency of 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 felt their family members were safe. One relative told us, “Literally, we have no concerns in anything to do with safety.” A safeguarding adults’ and children policy was in place, which included details of who staff could contact if needed. Staff had completed safeguarding adults and children training. Staff were able to recognise signs of safeguarding. One Staff member told us, “Yes. I can recognise different types of abuse including physical, emotional, financial, neglect and discriminatory abuse. If I suspect or witness abuse, I would ensure the person is safe, document the concern, complete an incident report and report immediately to my line manager in line with safeguarding policy.” This meant staff had the knowledge and confidence to report concerns appropriately and follow the organisation’s safeguarding policy.

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.

Risk assessments and care plans had been collaboratively completed with people. Staff were provided with accurate written guidance to follow to ensure people were supported to manage risks the way they wanted to be supported. For example, a person who used specialised moving and handling equipment was supported by a person-centred risk assessment that gave staff clear guidance on managing their safety. One relative told us, “We work as a team, the carers and the agency, which I really like.” This meant people were supported safely and in line with their preferences because staff had clear, accurate and person‑centred guidance on how to manage risks effectively.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Staff had completed an environmental risk assessment for each person they supported and reviewed this regularly to ensure it was accurate.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, whoreceived effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to providesafe care that met people’s individual needs.

Relatives told us there was always enough staff. One relative told us, “We have a team of six; they have very good continuity of staff.” Staff training records showed staff had completed a wide range of training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people with their care and support needs. Staff received an induction when they first started and had regular one‑to‑one supervision, providing opportunities to reflect on practice, discuss performance, and identify development needs. Recruitment processes were followed to ensure only suitable staff were appointed. This meant people were supported by a consistent and well‑trained staff team who had the time, skills and knowledge to meet their care and support needs safely.

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 had a policy in place and staff had completed training to guide staff on effective infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. Records demonstrated that people were supported to maintain good personal hygiene, helping to reduce the risk of infection and promote good personal hygiene. One relative told us, “They [staff] are excellent, they always wear PPE.”

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

Medicines were not always managed safely. For example, where people had been prescribed topical medicines, there were no medication administration records (MARs) in place, and there was no clear guidance on where the topical medicine should be applied or how often it should be used. Furthermore, care plans did not provide clear guidance to staff on the support people required with their medicines. This meant there was a risk that people may not receive their medicine safely or as prescribed. The registered manager told us they had taken action after our visit and updated the person’s care plan.