Aalia Health Care Limited

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. There were robust processes to investigate accidents and incidents and ensure staff were able to learn from these. Information was used to identify themes and trends, which were used to inform improvement. For example, incidents had been investigated and staff told us learning had been shared through supervisions and team meetings.

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 moved between different services. The registered manager undertook assessments prior to people moving to the home and undertook a further assessment once a person had moved to the service. The registered manager liaised with all professionals involved in people’s care and had built up good working relationships with colleagues in other organisations.

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. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff had received training about safeguarding and the signs of abuse. A staff member told us, “We’ve got everything in place. I’ve been trained in safeguarding, I know what to look out for. Definitely, I would raise concerns, no hesitation.” The service had appropriate processes in place to identify, record and investigate any safeguarding concerns. The service notified appropriate organisations. The registered manager made timely Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications to the Local Authority, and monitored those with conditions to ensure these were met.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They had not always undertaken regular reviews of people’s risks or involved people or their relatives. Although regular risk reviews had generally taken place there was a period when these had not been undertaken. This was discussed with the registered manager and the area manager, who explained that due to management shortages across the provider group reviews had taken place for a period only where people’s needs had changed. The registered manager had re-commenced regular reviews of risk assessments. Risks were assessed and were understood. People were supported in the least restrictive way possible. A relative told us, “[Person] is encouraged to keep as independent as [they] can with their (staff) support.” Best interest decisions had been undertaken where people were not able to consent to some restrictions.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People were cared for in an environment adapted to their needs. Dementia friendly signage was evident throughout the home, with wall murals depicting different shops, streets or scenes to enable people living with dementia to orientate themselves. A relative told us, “The home is open plan, so [person] is able to wander around freely, even in the (outside) courtyard.” The service undertook appropriate checks on the premises and equipment to ensure it was safe.

The service 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. A staff member confirmed, “There’s enough staff. We’re doing really well as a team. Everyone brings something to the team.” Relatives’ comments included, “There is always a member of staff around”, “There is loads of staff. Never have to wait long for [person] to get attention, even when you press the buzzer”, “I think the staff are trained to work with people living with dementia” and “I do think that they know what they are doing and are well-trained to look after her.” However, one relative commented, “There seem to be enough staff in the daytime, slightly less at weekends and no management staff at weekends.” A staff member told us, “[Registered manager] absolutely supports me. [Registered manager] has been so supportive.”

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. People were prevented as much as possible from the risk of infection. The premises and equipment were clean and kept tidy. Relatives confirmed this, telling us, “The home is clean and tidy when I visit.” A staff member confirmed, “We have enough equipment and stocks. We do deep cleans, they’re all scheduled. But we also do them if there is a virus going round.”

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. Medicines were managed and administered safely by trained and knowledgeable staff. People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff understood what medicines people were taking and were able to describe to people what they were. Colour-codes were used to ensure people received their medicines at the right time. Staff ensured people who were on medicines which had pronounced side effects, such as those for thinning the blood, were monitored. A relative told us, “I have no concerns about [person’s] medication.”