Passionate About 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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and staffing. Improvements were found at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had processes in place for staff to report incidents and near misses. This included reviewing and learning from incidents and adjusting people’s care accordingly to keep them safe. The manager told us, “One of my top priorities has been improving how we handle incidents and accidents. We now log, audit, and thoroughly investigate every report, involving both clients and carers when necessary. By monitoring these closely, we’re able to identify patterns and trends that inform risk assessments and care plan updates. We also hold regular team and office meetings where we discuss real scenarios involving reporting procedures, including incidents, medication errors, and near misses, so that staff are well-informed and confident in how to respond.”

The service 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. This included completing a comprehensive initial assessment with the person and their representatives. This ensured information regarding all health and social care professionals involved in people’s care were up to date and routinely reviewed. The provider ensured people’s needs were reassessed after significant events, such as hospital admissions or injuries. This helped to ensure care arrangements were suitable and reflective of people’s current needs.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff and the registered manager knew how to recognise the signs and what to do if they suspected someone was at risk of abuse or neglect. The provider had effective policies in procedures in place to promote people’s safety. This included procedures around handling people’s money and ensuring their safety was accounted for if they were not contactable at the time of planned care call times. This helped to promote their safety and security.

Improvements had been made to the assessment and management of risks relating to people’s care. The service worked with people to understand and manage risks. Assessments were undertaken to identify risks to people and to the care staff who supported them. Areas covered by these assessments included risks associated with the environment, personal care and moving and handling. Staff were confident in detailing how they would monitor and reduce risks in relation to areas such as safe use of hoists and catheters. People’s care plan’s contained detailed and clear instructions for staff around how to support people to manage and monitor their medical conditions and any related equipment associated with people’s care. Care plans also documented when to escalate concerns to professionals to ensure that staff acted within their sphere of responsibility. The service carried out additional monitoring such as smoke alarm checks and worked in partnership with the local fire service to support people when needed. The provider was strengthening these assessments during our inspection. This included adding key information such as the locations of utility shut-off points for gas, electricity, and water so that appropriate action would be taken in an emergency situation. There were policies and systems in place to help reduce risks related to monitoring care remotely. For example, business continuity plans and electronic call monitoring. This helped reduce risks related to providing care in community-based settings.

The service 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 assessments of people’s home environments to identify and reduce any risks related to the delivery of care. The manager and senior staff understood who to contact should they feel people may benefit from additional aids or equipment. There were clear instructions for staff, outlining the safe use of any care related equipment, Staff were trained and routinely checked when using equipment which helped to ensure it was used appropriately. The manager told us, “We carry out equipment checks every 6 months. If a report is received that any equipment is not functioning properly, we promptly contact the equipment service team for further assessment and action. Carers will raise concerns via their apps which are monitored by the coordinators, carers will also call the office to say that they have raised a concern. The coordinators will then action the concerns raised promptly.”

Improvements had been made to ensure safe and effective staffing, including how staff were deployed. The service 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 training and support had improved following the last inspection. Most people told us they received consistent staff at the agreed times and staff were well trained and competent in their role. Staff received training relevant to their role and systems were in place to promote their ongoing learning and development, including regular supervision, checks of their competency and shared learning through team meetings. Staff were recruited safely. The manager told us, “Professional development is something I strongly encourage, and during staff supervisions I’ve introduced NVQ opportunities, which have been well received. I’m also in the process of rolling out more specialised training in areas such as diabetes, mental health, and dementia care so we can meet the evolving needs of our clients.”

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. People raised no concerns in relation to infection control. They told us staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) whilst they were providing care. The provider had effective infection control policies and procedures in place. The service carried out audits and spot checks on staff to ensure they were following correct infection control procedures and wearing PPE safely.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. The provider had policies and procedures developed in line with national guidance, to help ensure staff were following best practice. People’s care plans detailed the support people needed to manage their medicines and the support they required. Records showed people received their medicines safely as prescribed. Staff had a good understanding of best practice in medicines administration. Staff had been trained to administer medicines and had been assessed as competent to do so safely. Systems were in place to update training and staff competency as required.