Edith Healthcare Wolverhampton

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 69 (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 systems in place to review incidents when they occurred. Incidents were reviewed and staff informed about learning from incidents to continually identify and embed good practice. Where incidents had occurred, the registered manager had reviewed these and taken action to prevent them from reoccurring. We saw incidents were reviewed and actions taken to reduce risks. For example, there was information about a medicines incident and records incident which had been reviewed and learning shared with staff. Staff could describe the actions they took if someone had an accident. There had been no incidents or accidents since the last inspection, but the registered manager had systems in place to analyse any incidents that occurred.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. The provider told us they had systems in place to assess people’s needs, identify risks and develop care plans to keep people safe. Staff told us they had access to care plans and assessments and staff reviewed care plans before they went to visit people. Records showed people had their needs assessed and plans put in place to meet them, and these were reviewed monthly during a service review process or when things changed. The registered manager told us they collaborated with other professionals to develop care plans when needed. People and their relatives told us they had support from a staff team who understood their needs. A person told us, “We are very happy with the service. It is very good. We have a team of staff who come 3 times a day.”

The provider protected people’s right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. Staff understood how to protect people from harm and the registered manager shared concerns appropriately. People and their relatives felt staff supported people to stay safe. The provider had a policy in place which was aligned with local safeguarding procedures and reported any incidents to the safeguarding authority for investigation. Staff told us they had received training in safeguarding, and records supported this. Staff could describe how they would recognise abuse and the actions they would take to keep people safe. The registered manager shared examples of incidents which had been reported to the local safeguarding team for investigation. Records showed when incidents occurred these were reviewed to apply any learning to reduce the risk of these things from happening again.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks to their safety. Staff understood how to keep people safe and could describe how they supported people to manage risks to their safety. People and relatives told us staff helped them stay safe when receiving care. A relative told us, “The staff give personal care and effectively use a hoist to help [person’s name], who always feels safe in their care.” Staff told us they received information in people’s care plans which helped them understand how to support people. A staff member told us, “[Person’s name] is at risk of falls, they can usually walk with a walking frame, but we have to assess as some days are better than others and this can create an increased risk, there is guidance on what to do in the care plan.” Risk assessments were completed, and care plans included guidance to show staff how to minimise the risk to people’s safety. The registered manager told us these were reviewed every 6 months or when things changed. We saw risk assessments were in place to consider risks relating to falls, skin integrity, manual handling and nutrition. Updates were carried out when things changed and staff were familiar with the content of the management plans.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment using risk assessments and management plans. Staff were aware of risks to people’s safety and had guidance included in care plans to ensure people were safe. Records showed risk assessments were carried out to identify risks relating to people’s homes and there were management plans in place to minimise the risk. For example, the risk assessments we saw included identification of fire risks, and information for staff on what was in place to reduce the risk such as smoke detectors. Other information included access to the property, equipment in place and domestic hygiene risks. Staff told us they were made aware of risks to people and themselves from people’s homes, including information on the safe use of equipment such as stair lifts and when people had pets in the home.

The provider did not always ensure people received their care and support at the times they needed it. People and relatives shared mixed views of whether staff arrived at the required times for the calls. A relative told us, “They mostly come on time.” Whilst another said, “I did ring the office once as staff had not arrived for [person’s name] 8am call. They didn’t turn up until almost 10am and this was too late for my relative.” Some calls were logged as later than planned. The registered manager had introduced a check in system for staff to clock in on arrival at the calls, which meant they could monitor if staff had not arrived on time to a call and take action to address this. People and their relatives told us staff always stayed for the duration of the calls and often longer if needed. The provider had a system in place to monitor the call duration, and we saw staff were often staying longer in calls. Staff received training and this was updated regularly. People and relatives told us they felt staff had the skills to support them. A relative told us, “I feel safe in their care, and I trust them. I have various staff, and they are all well trained.” Staff told us they had regular opportunities to get support and supervision. Records showed staff received training, an induction and regular meetings with the registered manager to discuss their role. The provider had a recruitment policy in place which supported safe recruitment practice, which they followed when recruiting staff.

The provider had systems in place to manage the risk of infection. The provider had a policy in place for infection prevention control. The registered manager told us they carried out spot checks with staff undertaking people’s calls and infection prevention control, including the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), was considered during these calls. Staff told us they had received training in infection prevention control and had access to PPE. People and their relatives confirmed staff followed safe practices. A relative told us, “The staff wear gloves and aprons when they support [person’s name].”

The provider had systems in place to support people to take their medicines as prescribed. However, we saw there had been a safeguarding concern raised as one person had not received their medicines as prescribed and some feedback from relatives also raised medicines administration as a concern. A relative told us, “I have found medicines which have not been administered in the past.” This meant we could not be assured people consistently had their medicines as prescribed. The registered manager told us they carried out checks on people’s medicines administration records and acted if there were any gaps in people’s medicines records. The medicines administration records we saw were accurately completed and there was guidance for staff on how to administer medicines safely. Staff had received training and had their competency checked before they administered medicines and there was a policy in place to guide staff on how to administer medicines safely. A Medicines support assessment was completed which identified the need for any topical application and body maps were used where required. There was also information about time specific medicines for staff and protocols for when people had been prescribed as required medicines.