Basingstoke Centre

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.

At our last assessment the service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to fit and proper persons employed. At this assessment the service had improved sufficiently and is no longer in breach of this regulation.

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 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.

People, relatives and staff felt confident in raising safety issues and told us senior staff would address their concerns. The provider dealt with incidents and any learning from these was fed back to staff. There was good evidence of learning from complaints. For example, obtaining permission when visiting people outside of expected call times . The provider had used incidents to make improvements and embed good practice such as updating care and support plans. Staff were informed of changes through messaging, supervisions, team meetings or updates via their care application.

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 provider assessed people prior to starting care with them. Staff confirmed they had care plans available when people started receiving a service. There was evidence of communications by the service with professionals including hospitals, speech and language therapists (SaLT), social workers, district nurses and GPs. The service had positive feedback from professionals we spoke with.
The registered manager considered people’s needs and personalities when matching staff to support them.

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 and relatives told us they felt safe receiving support from the staff. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and understood how to recognise the signs of abuse. The provider had effective safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Senior staff demonstrated a thorough approach to investigating safeguarding concerns, to help reduce the risk of people suffering abuse or coming to avoidable harm.

All staff were trained in safeguarding adults and children and knew what signs to look out for and who to report this to. One staff member told us, “There is a clear reporting structure and staff are trained regularly on safeguarding procedures.”

Although the provider worked with people to understand and manage risks, they did not always fully detail all of the risks to ensure staff would have comprehensive guidance when supporting people to remain safe.

The provider considered risk to people as part of their assessment, however, how staff were to support people to reduce the risk of harm was not always considered and clearly documented in people’s care plans. For example, people did not have a risk assessment for using flammable emollients which posed additional risks to people in the event of a fire. However, the provider put this in place during the assessment. Staff we spoke with were clear about these risks and how to mitigate them. This reduced the risk to people.
People we spoke with were happy with the quality of care provided. The provider worked during the assessment to improve risk assessments and guide staff on what to do should the risk occur, but this still needed to be embedded.

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 assessments of people’s home environments to identify and reduce any risks related to the delivery of care. This included checking if equipment was safe to use when in place. Staff were clear on what to look out for the keep the environment and people safe. The provider had invested in technological solutions to aid the delivery of safe care. This included electronic care planning systems and telephone systems, which helped to improve safety and the provider’s ability to monitor how care was delivered.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. However, some recruitment practices needed to improve.

We reviewed 4 staff recruitment records during the inspection. These included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks . One of the recruitment records did not record all the required pre-employment checks to evidence how the provider ensured only suitable staff would support people. The provider’s recruitment policy needed to be updated to better enable the provider to follow safe recruitment. The provider obtained the missing information and updated the recruitment policy during the assessment.

People and relatives told us they received care from regular staff. People told us staff were on time and stayed for the full duration of their calls. They also told us they thought staff were well trained. One person told us, “There are about 8 carers that call I know their faces and their time keeping is good and they have never let me down.”

The provider made sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. Records evidenced staff received an appropriate induction including training and shadowing. Training for staff across all mandatory subjects was up to date and complied with best practice guidance. Staff training was a combination of external face to face and online.

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 were knowledgeable about keeping people’s homes clean and reducing the risk of infection. Staff knew when to use PPE and how to dispose of it correctly. They were also clear on the benefits of good hand hygiene. One person was positive about staff wearing gloves and aprons. A relative also told us, “The [staff] when doing personal care wear aprons and gloves.”
The provider used regular spot checks in people’s homes to check good practice. This helped to ensure staff were following effective infection control procedures.

The provider made sure that people received their medicines as prescribed and medicines management met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

The provider had policies and procedures developed in line with national guidance, to help ensure staff were following best practice when supporting people with their medicines. People’s care plans detailed the support people needed to manage their medicines, and levels of independence people wished to maintain. Staff were trained to administer medicines and their competency to do so safely was assessed via spot checks. The registered manager had identified the need for a more robust and detailed competency check to ensure staff knowledge. This had recently been put in place and was working well to improve staff practice.

Staff completed an electronic medicine administration record when they administered people’s medicine. This was monitored by the provider and medicine records were promptly updated when people’s prescriptions changed. The provided used the alert system to follow up any potential missed medicines promptly with staff.
The provider was aware when people required strict time-specific care calls to ensure they received their medicines as prescribed.