Beloved Homecare 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 inspection 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 a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety, management investigated and reported safety events appropriately. The provider had systems in place to continually improve, identify, and embed good practice from analysis of a number of areas of the business, including analysis of staff retention information. The provider had oversight of accidents and incidents, which were recorded appropriately. Learning from events was promptly shared with staff during meetings, spot checks and internal communication channels. People and their relatives were informed when things went wrong. One relative told us, “If there’s a problem the manager rings and tells me, he’s very open and honest.” Staff had a good understanding of how to support people safely. One staff member told us, “We read the care plans, and the clients can also tell us when we attend visits. If anything needs changing or reviewing, we can phone the office, and they will update the care plan.”

The provider worked with people and other healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. Peoples’ needs were fully assessed prior to receiving a package of care. Relatives told us they found the process of moving from other services to Beloved Homecare Ltd very smooth and were given enough information about the service prior to the move. We were told, “The move from another care provider was seamless. Someone from Beloved Homecare came spoke with us to find out about [Name] so they knew about [Name] before they took over the package. It made me feel so comfortable how professional they were” and “They came out to the care home and assessed [Name] before they took over. They arranged a package quite quickly and mum was taken back home.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Risk of abuse to people were minimised as all staff received safeguarding training during their induction. Staff told us they felt confident about raising concerns. A staff member said, “Yes, I feel comfortable raising concerns. We can call the manager and let them know if we have a concern. We call the office and let them know and put in our notes.”

People and relatives told us they felt safe and knew how to raise concerns and felt confident these would be acted upon by management. One relative said, “Yes, I know how to raise a concern. I would phone the office and possibly tell the local authority if needed.” The provider had detailed safeguarding policies for staff to refer to and shared concerns about people quickly with other agencies when appropriate.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive, and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. However, some risk assessments and resulting care plans needed to be more detailed. This was particularly in relation to ensuring staff had consistently detailed written guidance to support peoples moving and handling needs, and specific medical conditions. We raised this with the registered manager who took immediate steps to address any shortfalls. Risks were reviewed when people’s needs changed. Staff told us they accessed up to date information using electronic care planning system and knew how to keep people safe through training.

The provider made sure equipment used by staff to support people’s care needs was safe. People lived in their own homes and had environmental risk assessments in place to ensure the environment they lived in supported the delivery of safe care. One relative described how the provider discussed an environmental risk to their loved one’s safety with them as well as staff’s safety and worked with them to find ways to mitigate the risk. They told us, “I redecorated [Name] room a bit and put a new rug near her bed, but it slipped and slides a bit. Staff told me straight away that it was a risk, and we changed it.”

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. Staff were recruited safely. Staff told us they received detailed training and induction. A staff member said, “I had an induction with the manager and a senior staff member. I did training in manual handling and how to use a hoist, and how to administer medicines and how to prepare food safely. I did some shadowing with senior care staff.” People received care from a consistent staff team. Relatives told us, “They [staff] always turn up on time even in bad weather and stay for the right amount of time” and “Yes, they know [Name] well. We’ve got quite friendly and used to them now, we know all their names and there’s a sort of relationship there now.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff had received infection prevention and control training as well as food hygiene training. We observed staff collecting supplies of personal protective equipment [PPE] from the registered office as well as wearing appropriate PPE during care visits. People told us staff used PPE appropriately. A person told us, “They [staff] always wear their PPE, and they clean up properly.”

The provider made sure that medicines were safe and met people’s needs. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. However, clearer information was needed in care plans when people were prescribed medicines which must be administered at specific times. In some cases, more detail was needed to describe people’s preferences with medication support. Some PRN protocols did not have detailed information in place. These protocols provide additional guidance for staff to refer to for those medicines prescribed on an ‘as required’ basis. We raised these shortfalls with the provider, and we were assured this would be swiftly rectified.

Staff were appropriately trained and their competency to administer medicines was checked on a regular basis. Medicine administration records [MAR] were completed to show when people had received or refused their medicines and people gave examples of positive support with this aspect of their care. For example, a relative told us, “[Name] medicines come in blister packs, and they always administer them on time. We had issues with chemist in the past, but they notified us and helped us change the chemist and we have had no issues since.”