Grossdale Care Agency Also known as Fountain of Hope Care 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. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection 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.

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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. There had not been any incidents in the service but staff and managers told us they would listen to concerns about safety and had processes in place to investigate and report safety events. There was a clear process for reporting and recording incidents or accidents such as those involving people coming to harm. Procedures for investigating incidents included an evaluation to learn lessons from them to prevent reoccurrence and to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. The management team had experience of working with external professionals and partner agencies to ensure there was continuity of care for people, including when they moved between different services. For example, the service had previously supported people with end of life care who had moved back to their own homes. The service worked closely with professionals to ensure people’s end of life wishes were respected.

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. There had not been any safeguarding concerns reported since our last inspection. The registered manager told us concerns would be reported quickly and appropriately. Staff and managers understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse and received training in safeguarding people. There were clear and up to date safeguarding systems and processes in place that considered the protection of human rights and protecting people from abuse, neglect and discrimination.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People and their relatives told us staff worked with them to protect them from coming to harm. They confirmed they had been involved when discussing risks to their health and felt staff knew how to keep people safe. People told us the service had carried out an assessment of their needs and risks. A person told us, “I have been fully involved to help manage my care and risks. I feel perfectly safe.” A relative said, “Yes, we were involved in care planning for [family member]. Staff understand their needs and risks.”

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The registered manager completed an environmental risk assessment within people’s homes during the initial assessment to check if it was safe for staff to work and carry out tasks. This included fire safety and environment hazard checks.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. There were processes in place to ensure staff were deployed in the community effectively and they knew where they had to be and at what time. Staff received an induction and training and were recruited safely. Staff had the opportunity to shadow other staff supporting people to help them get to know them and become familiar in practices and procedures. However, we identified that staff criminal record checks were last reviewed and updated more than 5 years previously for a staff member. We discussed with the provider that these checks were good practice because they can provide the most up to date information on existing staff for any convictions, since they first started working in the service, that had not been disclosed. The director told us they would carry out a review following our assessment in order to make robust safe recruitment decisions.

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. Infection prevention and control procedures were in place. Staff had access to sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE). A staff member said, “We have plenty of PPE for when we need to get some more.” Staff received training to help them maintain good standards of infection control. A person said, "The carers wear gloves and aprons and they wash their hands.”

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. Improvements had been made since our last inspection and there were robust procedures for recording, auditing and administering medicines to people. Staff told us they received medicines training and felt confident they could support people with medicines should they required this. Information about people's medicines was included in people’s care plans. Staff competency checks were carried out should they be involved in supporting people with medicines.