Compassion 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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has improved 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.

Auditing processes were in place to monitor incidents, accidents, and complaints effectively. Accidents, incidents, complaints and areas of concern were reported and analysed so that the necessary improvements were made. The registered manager demonstrated how lessons were learned and shared with staff. The registered manager regularly monitored this work to ensure standards were maintained.

Staff reported feeling confident to raise concerns and trusted the registered manager would take appropriate action when needed. Comments from staff members included, “I’ve always felt very comfortable raising concerns because I know they [the managers] are committed to providing the best possible service to people” and “We [staff] know we can always raise concerns if there are any and they will be dealt with promptly, they [the registered manager] are very proactive.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Care plans were person-centred, and we saw evidence they were regularly reviewed with all the appropriate people concerned. Staff used an electronic call monitoring system to log in and out of their visits which also flagged delays or missed visits to the management team. We saw evidence that alerts on the system were audited daily. Visit notes and medication was also audited every week and the electronic medication forms notified management if there were any issues.

Feedback from people and reviewing the service’s visit data, confirmed staff arrived on time and stayed for the full duration. People told us they received rotas in good time and were notified of any changes. They said punctuality was very good. People also told us they mostly had the same care staff. Staff confirmed that they visited the same group of people.

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’s relatives said their family members felt safe and they were well supported by staff. Comments from relatives included, "The staff are so supportive of people, they know how to keep them as safe as possible”, “People are kept safe,” "I don't have any worries”, and “I am pleased with the care my [family member] receives, it’s a great relief to know they are safe and well cared for, since I can’t be there all the time."

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 protected from abuse and improper treatment. The service had appropriate safeguarding procedures in place and staff received on-going training around identifying signs of abuse and the actions they should take. Staff understood their role in protecting people from abuse and their duty to report any suspicions of abuse. Where safeguarding concerns were raised the provider acted promptly and decisively to protect people. This included making safeguarding referrals to the local authority, notifying CQC and taking action to ensure people’s safety.

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.

Since the last inspection the provider had completely overhauled their risk management processes. We saw evidence that comprehensive risks assessments for people and staff were carried out as part of their assessment for when people started with the service. This included falls risk assessments. All assessments were regularly reviewed as required. People and relatives told us they had been involved in creating their care plans. Risk assessments were documented throughout care plans with mitigating actions to reduce risks identified. This promoted positive outcomes for people around their safety through giving appropriate guidance to staff to provide good quality care.

Staff we spoke with were clear about these risks and how to mitigate them. Staff told us there was enough information within care plans and it was clear what they needed to do. Staff comments included, “People’s care plans do reflect the needs of people and they are clear,” and “Reviews are held regularly and risk assessments are an integral part of this process. People are kept safe because of this.” People and their relatives confirmed this with us.

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

The provider carried out risk assessments of people’s homes to identify and minimise any potential risks related to the delivery of care for staff or people using the service. The provider used electronic care planning systems together with mobile phone applications to aid the delivery of safe care. This helped to improve safety and the provider’s ability to monitor how care was delivered. Staff had completed food hygiene, infection control and fire safety training which supported them in the correct procedures to follow if there was a fire within a person’s property.

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 were recruited safely with appropriate checks taking place. All staff received an induction and a comprehensive training programme to ensure they were competent and had the right skills for the people they were supporting to provide safe care.

Effective supervision and appraisal processes were in place. Staff told us they received good support through supervision. This included one to one meetings and team meetings. This ensured staff had the right skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and support.

We were happy from staff comments we received that they felt appropriately supported by managers with their work. Staff told us they received training in core areas such as first aid, infection control, the Mental Capacity Act, safeguarding, food hygiene and equality and diversity. We saw evidence that training programmes included training on working with people living with dementia, manual handling, infection control, food hygiene and the administration of medicines.

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 effective infection control procedures in place. Staff told us there were adequate supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), and they knew how and when to use it. The provider used regular spot checks in people’s homes to assure themselves staff’s infection control practices were safe. One staff member commented, “We wear PPE for personal care. I normally wear disposable apron and gloves, I change gloves and aprons when I change tasks.” No concerns were raised by people or their relatives when we spoke with them about infection control practice by staff.

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.

Medicines were administered as required and in line with people’s prescriptions. We saw clear evidence of guidance for staff to follow about specific medical conditions people had such as for epilepsy or other chronic health conditions. Staff told us they were confident in managing people’s care plans because they detailed the support people needed to manage their medicines, and levels of independence people wished to maintain. As required medicines (PRN) protocols were detailed for people. This guided staff to know when they were required. The registered manager told us no people were currently receiving their medicines covertly. Staff were trained to administer medicines and their ongoing competency to do so safely was assessed via regular medicines competency assessments.

Audits of staff practices with people’s medicines was now much easier given the use of digital systems of recording which were monitored daily in the head office. This meant if any errors occurred, they could be rectified immediately.