Hallam24 Bassetlaw

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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. Quality monitoring systems such as audits were used effectively to highlight areas of improvement and identify trends. For example, audits were reviewed daily to ensure call times and the length of time staff stayed with people were consistent. This had reduced complaints and improved people’s daily care experience. Staff confirmed and we saw evidence of lessons learned being shared and discussed during team meetings and through regular competency checks with staff.

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 management team ensured they supported people to document their needs and wishes, and care plans were developed with guidance for staff, so staff understood people’s needs prior to their package of care commencing. Where needed we saw appropriate referrals to other services such as district nurses and their advice and recommendations were documented.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The registered manager kept clear records and logs of all safeguarding concerns. If any actions were needed the management team developed an action plan and shared the outcome with staff. We saw evidence that concerns were raised in a timely way with the local authority and CQC as per legal requirements.

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. A relative said, “Yes, I was involved, that was done when the carers first started coming. We were all there and discussed the care plan. My [relative] was asked what they wanted and if anything changed to tell them. They were accommodating.”

Care plans were routinely reviewed however we saw evidence that needs and wishes were updated as people requested or as their needs change, this ensured people received safe care consistently.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Care plans contained environment risk assessments to ensure staff remained safe whilst working within people’s homes. Where needed, staff checked equipment prior to use to ensure its condition, where needed external companies were contacted for repairs and servicing. This ensured people received care safely in their own homes.

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. Everyone we spoke with told us they were supported by a consistent team of staff members. Where new staff were introduced, people confirmed they shadowed existing staff to enable them to get to know people and understand their care needs. A quality monitoring process had been implemented that ensured potential late visits were flagged early and this had significantly reduced late calls where possible.

Staff confirmed they received regular supervisions and praised the training and development available to them. We saw evidence of succession planning and staff being upskilled to take on more responsibilities.

Care plans we reviewed contained clear guidance for staff on how to support people in a person-centred way whilst protecting them from infection prevention and control risks. Best practice guidance was also documented for staff such as processes for disposal of medical waste. People we spoke with told us staff consistently used personal protective equipment (PPE) where needed and staff confirmed that have access to a consistent supply of PPE.

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. Not everyone we spoke with was supported with medicines. Where people were, they told us staff were knowledgeable about medicines and ensured they received their medicine safely and timely. Where people had raised concerns, the provider had responded responsively. One person said, “My [relative] gets their medicines, and staff record them on their mobiles. Any changes to medication are put on their phones. The medications once were out of sync by a day and I notified them. It didn’t happen again”