Lotus Home Care Wakefield

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

People and their relatives could speak to staff and the management team if they had any concerns, a person told us “I know who I can speak to.” The leadership team regularly contacted people and their relatives for feedback. Documentation demonstrated open and honest communication between relatives and the provider.

The registered manager had good oversight of incidents, accidents and complaints. Feedback collected from staff was used to continually make improvements and embed good practice. Staff were confident to raise concerns and actions were taken when necessary. When lessons were learnt, it was communicated to all staff.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider has robust systems to ensure lessons were learnt and communicated to all staff. Investigations where needed were completed robustly and included actions taken by the provider.

People and their relatives were involved in the preadmission process. People and their relatives attended face to face meetings prior to any care starting. People told us they were involved in their care including transitions of care.

Leaders had a good understanding of the referral process and understood the importance of a robust pre assessment. Initial care plans were created and shared with staff before care commenced to ensure safe and person-centred care was delivered.

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 provider had processes in place to support safe admissions and transfers of care. The provider ensured safe admissions into the service, and visits between services were consistent and seamless. We saw evidence of continuity of care between different services, contained in care records for people.

People told us they felt safe with the support they received from the service. Relatives told us they were confidence their family members were safe and they could rely on the service. A person told us, “Yes I do feel safe, I can talk to staff if I didn’t feel safe.”

Staff knew how to ensure people were protected from harm and abuse. They told us how they would raise concerns to the registered manager and if it was necessary to the local authority. Staff told us they were confident the registered manager would follow up any concerns.

The processes in place to ensure people remained safe were effective. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff understood how to ensure people’s rights were fully respected and had received training in safeguarding. The providers safeguarding policy underpinned the processes to ensure people were safe.

The service involved people and their relatives when managing risks. People told us staff kept them safe and involved them in risk assessments.

Staff knew people well and told us they had enough information regarding people’s individual risks. One member of staff told us, “Risk assessments are regularly updated, I can use this information to support the person in the safest way.” Management told us every 3 months they call people and their relatives to complete a quality assurance questionnaire, this includes how risks are managed.

Quality assurance measures identified and reduced risks. People had risk assessments in place with clear guidance to support staff on how to manage their risks. Risk assessments were created and maintained within the provider electronic care planning system, this meant they were updated immediately as things changed.

People and their relatives felt staff ensured the environment was safe before, during and after delivering care.

Staff and the management were aware of the importance of maintaining a safe, homely environment for people. Staff told us there were up to date environmental risk assessments in place to guide them on how to safely deliver care. Staff received regular spot checks which included checking their understanding and awareness of environmental hazards.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Risks to people and staff were identified and well managed this included within people’s homes and accessing the community.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Feedback forms were completed regularly, and evidenced people were happy with the care delivered. Any feedback from people including compliments were shared with staff.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. Staff had opportunities to discuss their own well-being, training and development in their role.

The provider had effective processes in place to ensure staff had the necessary skills and competence to carry out their roles. The registered manager ensured all staff had regular spot checks to ensure care remained safe. Recruitment records showed staff were recruited safely. Staff had been recruited with a range of checks including references, disclosure and barring checks (DBS).

People and their relatives were happy and did not have any negative comments regarding the infection prevention and control practices.

Staff told us there were enough personal protective equipment (PPE) and they knew how to use it appropriately. All staff were up to date with infection prevention and control (IPC) training. 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. There were policies and processes in place to ensure the service complied with IPC guidance.

People and their relatives gave positive feedback regarding the safe administration of medicine. A relative told us, “It’s always stored safely and always given at the same time, I have no concerns.”

Staff felt supported in administrating medicines. The registered manager ensured staff were up to date with medicine training and all staff had medicine competency checks every 3 months.

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. Quality assurance checks ensured any medicine errors were identified and there was evidence of lessons learnt.