Havesters Care Ltd

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 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 learned a number of lessons since our previous inspection. New IT systems were put in place and training had been updated to reflect people’s needs. The registered manager said, “We have made so many changes to improve the care we provide”.

Staff attended team meetings. These provided them with the opportunity for discussion about the service, care they provided to meet people’s needs and learning opportunities. Staff told us they felt supported by management and within their roles. One staff member commented, “Yes, I feel supported. Team leaders and managers are approachable, and I know I can go to them if I have concerns. Supervisions and team meetings also give me a space to raise issues or ask for guidance”.

Any incidents or accidents at the service were investigated by the provider and professionals told us the registered manager was open to feedback and learning lessons. The service had a policy for staff to follow should things go wrong, and we saw there was an incident form template to use should staff need to.

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 required support from external agencies. Everyone we spoke with was positive about their experience. Assessment records evidenced people’s views were listened to. Records detailed staff worked effectively with GP’s, district nurses and other external healthcare professionals.

People felt safe with the staff who supported them. People’s relatives said they felt confident that the service would listen to them if they raised any concerns, or experienced a situation which made them feel their family member was unsafe. A person’s representative told us their family member was safe with the staff who visited and commented, “In the past, I have had to raise a concern, and it was dealt with properly. Now I don’t need to because everything is going well”.

The management team and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of abuse and neglect and knew how to recognise signs that may indicate a person was at risk. Staff gave examples of things they looked out for to help make sure people they supported remained safe.

Safeguarding adults’ policies and procedures were in place. 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. Staff received safeguarding training and were able to tell us the actions they would take should they have concerns.

People and their representatives told us the staff helped them to recognise risks in their daily lives and take action to reduce these. People knew about their care plans and risk assessments and had been involved in compiling these as much as possible. A person’s representative told us that personal risk assessments had been completed, and care staff followed them. Relatives told us people’s care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated as soon as any changes were needed.

Detailed risk assessments were in place for people with health conditions, including epilepsy and dementia. Where necessary support was sought from healthcare professionals. There was guidance about people's medical conditions in people's care files should these deteriorate. The guidance included signs and symptoms for staff to be aware of, what to do and who to contact in case of an emergency. The management team completed regular audits and people’s care plans were updated as soon as there were any changes or new risks were identified.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the service environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People had access to equipment that enabled their independence and ensured their physical and emotional needs were met. Environment risk assessments were completed to ensure the safety of people.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care staff allocated to their individual care packages and believed they were skilled and appropriately trained. They said staff were reliable and always completed all the tasks they were required to do. A person’s representative commented, “I am confident the staff know what they are doing, it’s not something I worry about”.

Staff said they were happy with the training and support they received. Staff confirmed they completed an induction, shadow shifts and mandatory training, as well as person and health specific training. Staff gave examples of the training they had completed, which included dementia awareness, epilepsy, dignity and respect, moving and handling and a range of training to meet people’s specific health needs.

There were robust and safe recruitment practices to make sure that all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. These provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff received the support they needed to deliver safe care. This included supervision, appraisal and support to develop and improve services.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in infection prevention and control and demonstrated a good understanding of the measures to manage and prevent the spread of infection. We saw that the provider had policies and procedures regarding the prevention and control of infection, and they kept staff up to date with relevant national guidance.

People told us they were happy with the way the service and care staff managed their medicines. A person’s representative told us that medicines were always administered properly and on time and there had never been any problems with carers supporting their relative with their medicines.

Staff and the management team told us that some people required support to manage and administer their medicines. They confirmed that regular monitoring and audits were completed by way of checking people’s medicines administration records (MAR), spot checks and feedback from people and their representatives. All the staff we spoke with confirmed they had completed training for medicines management and administration and were confident with this area of responsibility.

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. People’s medication was reviewed to ensure people's behaviour was not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines.

The systems used for auditing medicines were reliable and robust. We saw the service closely monitored people’s medicines and kept detailed records of all anomalies regarding these.