Carelytical 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service This key question has been rated 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 positive approach to learning, with a culture based on openness and willingness to learn. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident appropriate action would be taken to address them. Staff knew how to record and report accidents and incidents and how to escalate safety concerns.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, maintaining continuity of care when moving between services. The provider had a robust pre-assessment process in place which enabled the provider to gather relevant information prior to care being provided by the service. People and relatives told us the process was smooth and thorough.

People were kept safe from harm and abuse. People and relatives told us staff treated them well and they felt safe receiving the care from the provider. Records showed staff had received relevant training in relation to safeguarding, and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities. There were clear processes in place to record concerns and notification to the local authority and CQC were made where appropriate.

Risks were not always managed safely as the provider did not always have adequate risk assessments in place for people. Some risks which had not been robustly assessed included the risk of falls, risks associated with the use of mobility equipment and risks of infections. However, the registered manager took immediate action to implement more robust risk assessments during the assessment process. People told us they felt safe with the care being provided to them by staff, and daily records evidenced people were being supported safely.

The provider identified and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Detailed environmental risk assessments were in place for people’s homes, and the provider ensured equipment and technology used was safe. Staff understood the requirement to monitor the safety of premises and equipment and knew how to report any concerns.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision, spot checks, competency checks and development opportunities. People told us they received care and support from the same staff members, and felt staff were trained and knowledgeable enough to meet their needs. The provider followed safe recruitment systems and processes.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff had access to enough personal protective equipment (PPE) and had received infection prevention and control training. People and relatives confirmed staff wore the appropriate PPE, and spot checks completed by the registered manager confirmed compliance with this.

Medicines were not always managed safely. At the time of the assessment, there were no ‘as and when required’ (PRN) protocols in place for 1 person who was in receipt of variable dose and when required pain relief. This person’s prescription had only changed a few days prior to the start of the assessment, and immediate action was taken by the registered manager to implement the required PRN protocols. However, the protocols for this person were not sufficiently detailed to provide specific instructions for staff on how and when these medications should be used, or how to assess the appropriate dosage with people. Care plans did not detail people’s medications and provided no guidance to staff on side effects of the medication people were being administered.

The provider had an effective electronic medication administration system and staff understood how to administer and record the administration of medication for people on this system. People told us they received the required support with their medication from staff and felt this was done safely in a way that met their needs and preferences.