Key Point Agency

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.

There were systems to help ensure there was a learning culture. Accidents, incidents and adverse events were reported and investigated. Records showed that staff had identified and shared concerns they had about people’s care including near misses. The provider recorded their response to these, which included making sure all staff were aware, discussing the concerns with the person and their relatives and making changes when needed. Relatives explained the provider contacted them if anything went wrong with 1 relative explaining, “They are good at staying in touch, I do not have any concerns, they let me know if anything is wrong.’’

The provider had processes to assess people’s needs when they started using the service. They explained they were also in the process of developing easy to access guidance for each person which could be shared with other professionals in case of emergencies and when people used other services. The staff supported 1 person to access regular healthcare appointments, although the person liaised directly with healthcare staff themselves.

There were systems to help ensure people were protected from abuse and harm. Relatives told us they thought people were safely cared for by the agency. One relative commented, ''I feel person is very safe and I do not have any concerns with the staff or agency.'' There was an appropriate safeguarding procedure. Staff had training in this and were able to tell us how they would recognise and report abuse. The provider gave people using the service information about abuse and how to report this. However, they had not always obtained the contact information for the local authority safeguarding teams where each person lived. We discussed this with the registered manager, and they agreed to update their own records and those in people’s homes with these details.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing had been assessed and planned for. The provider recorded actions for staff to help mitigate risks. Assessments were created with the person and were regularly reviewed. Relatives told us they felt risks were well managed. One relative commented, ''The staff are well trained and know how to care for [person] safely.'' Staff received training to understand how to provide safe care, for example helping people to move safely. The staff told us this training was helpful. The provider carried out spot checks to observe staff when they were providing care and to make sure this was safe.

The provider helped to make sure people lived in safe environments. However, they had not always kept records to show they had assessed people’s home environments at the start of their care and when their care was reviewed. We discussed this with the registered manager to make sure they put these records in place. This was important to ensure they identified any hazards for the person or staff before they started providing care. We saw that staff had been vigilant with regards to risks they identified during visits to provide care. For example, they had identified a potential hazard in 1 person’s home. They had reported this, and the provider had helped to address this with the person’s relatives. The provider had also explained to all staff that they should carry out routine safety checks and had developed a checklist for this.

There were systems for recruiting staff to make sure they were suitable. We identified that some of these systems had not been followed robustly and therefore important information about staff was not always in place. For example, when staff had changed addresses, this had not been updated. Additionally, the provider had not verified references when they first recruited staff. We discussed this with the registered manager, and they agreed to improve their systems for checking and put in place plans to mitigate any risks when they could not obtain all the necessary information about new staff. We saw staff had been interviewed and had taken part in inductions and training. There were regular spot checks on staff. The staff working at the agency had done so for several years and relatives spoke positively about their skills and the way they supported people.

Relatives told us people were cared for by the same regular staff and they were well matched to meet people’s needs. Relatives also explained staff arrived on time and did not rush people. Their comments included, "We have had the carers for a while, they arrive on time'', ‘’They [staff] are punctual and kind'' and "Carers have time to stay and chat.''

There were systems to help prevent and control the spread of infection. The staff had training to understand about good infection control and hand hygiene. They told us they were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE). Relatives told us the staff were good at cleaning and following safe hygiene practices. One relative explained, ‘’We have no concerns about cleanliness. The carers do the cleaning, and [person] is happy with this.’’

The provider had procedures to safely manage medicines. The staff had been trained to understand about medicines management. At the time of our assessment, no one was being supported with medicines. However, 1 relative explained, “The carers make sure [person] takes their medicines and reminds [them], but [they are] independent with this.’’ Staff also commented on this by explaining, ‘’[Person] takes [their] own medicines, we do not need to complete a MAR [medicines administration record] but we help [them] if [they] need to make sure medicines are accurate and they have enough.’’