Sun Health Care Domiciliary Care Services

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 abuseand 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 had confidence in all managers and felt able to discuss things openly with them. Leaders told us that that staff morale was good, and the staff team enjoyed working with each other. There was a good sense of teamwork. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had a clear vision for the direction of the service which demonstrated ambition and a desire for people to achieve the best outcomes possible. The service managed incidents affecting people's safety well. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately, and managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned.

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. People were supported to access a range of external health care professionals to improve their well-being. This included, psychologists, psychiatrists, speech and language therapist, epilepsy nurses, learning disability nurses and advocates.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff 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 provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People were supported to understand abuse and how to report it, and information on how to do so was provided in accessible formats. During the site visit we saw kind and respectful interactions between people and staff. Staff were seen to offer people choices and seek consent before supporting them.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided safe care to meet people’s needs, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People were supported to take positive risks towards independence using a creative and comprehensive approach to risk taking. Staff were trained in the use of restrictive interventions and were aware of the need to use the least restrictive option. Staff said people’s risk assessments and care plans were reviewed on a regular basis and when there were changes in people’s needs. People had person-centred care plans and risk assessments in place that included ways to avoid or minimise the need for restricting people’s freedom. This helped to make sure staff knew how to provide care that mitigated known risks. However, we noted some support plans would have benefited from clearer guidance on the management of risks. The management team told us they would work on improving this information.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

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. Safe recruitment processes were used in line with the provider's recruitment policy to ensure staff employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people. The service had enough staff. This enabled people who required one-to-one support to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted. Staff spoke highly of the quality of training they received and the skills they had been supported to develop in order to carry out their role to the best of their abilities. One staff member commented, “There is an extensive training programme and if we feel any training would be beneficial, they [management team] are very good at trying to source these for us.” The provider was passionate about providing a whole organisational approach to embedding positive behaviour support and reducing the use of restrictive practices. All the staff had a basic understanding of positive behaviour support and its value base. The impact of this training and approach was clear. People who had previously presented with aggression, self-harm, risks of absconding and low mood were happy, calm, and enjoyed activities they had never experienced before.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Infection control policies and procedures were in place. Staff told us they supported people to keep their houses clean, involving them in day to day upkeep of their home, where possible. Staff had access to personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of infection spreading. We noted no concerns with cleanliness and infection control during our visits.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Staff were trained in medicines administration and had competency assessments completed annually. This ensured staff could safely administer medicines. The service ensured people's behaviour was not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines. Staff understood and implemented the principles of STOMP (stopping over-medication of people with a learning disability, autism or both with psychotropic medicines) and ensured people's medicines were reviewed by prescribers in line with these principles.