Southview Home Care

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

People said they felt safe with staff and were happy with the support provided by them. People felt able to raise concerns and these were dealt with appropriately. People’s individual risks were identified, and risk assessment reviews carried out to keep people safe. People confirmed that staffing arrangements met their needs. Staff were well trained and competent in their jobs. There were safe and effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff confirmed they were encouraged and supported to raise concerns to help identify and manage risks proactively.

Incidents and complaints were appropriately investigated and reported. There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. For example, care plans and risk assessments were updated. Involvement of other health and social care professionals was requested where needed, to review people’s plans of care and treatment.

People felt able to raise concerns and these were dealt with appropriately. A relative commented, “We have a folder in mum’s house with the care plan and contact details as well as the complaints procedure, we are aware of what to do if we had any concerns or complaints.”

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of what might constitute abuse and knew how to report any concerns they might have. For example, staff knew how to report concerns within the organisation and externally such as the local authority, police, and the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Staff had received safeguarding training, to ensure they had up to date information about the protection of vulnerable people. The provider demonstrated an understanding of their safeguarding role and responsibilities. They explained the importance of working closely with commissioners, the local authority and relevant health and social care professionals on an on-going basis. There were clear policies for staff to follow. Staff confirmed that they knew about the safeguarding adults’ policy and procedure and where to locate it if needed.

People told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them and were confident to raise any concerns they might have. People commented, “Mum is safe with her carers as she has a regular team that she knows and trusts” and “I have the same carers all the time and feel very safe with them as we have formed a good relationship.”

People were supported and encouraged to be as independent as possible, with measures in place to minimise known risks. Comments included, “The care assessment considered what was best for mum and looked at risk assessments to assist with her mobility as she had a hip replacement, but she is very independent”, “(Relative) has a care plan and the carers document everything they do… and document that he has had his skin checked and application of cream” and “(Relative’s) skin integrity is so good and there are no marks.”

Staff were aware of and knew where to find information about people's risks. Staff told us that changes were communicated to them through a number of different channels, for example internal messages and staff meetings.

At the last inspection we identified a breach of Regulation 12 (safe care and treatment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We found no evidence that people had been harmed. However, the service had not ensured thorough risk assessments were in place to ensure people received safe care and treatment. At this assessment enough improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 12. People’s individual risks were identified, and the necessary risk assessment reviews were carried out to keep people safe. For example, risk assessments had been carried out for mobility, falls, eating and drinking and skin care. Where indicated, monitoring charts were in place to ensure people received safe care and support. For example, charts were in place to monitor people’s skin integrity. Risk management considered people’s physical and mental health needs and showed that measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible. This included ensuring necessary equipment was available to increase a person’s independence and ability to take informed risks.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff were well trained and competent in their jobs. Staff received training, which enabled them to feel confident in meeting people’s needs and identify changes in people’s health. Staff received training on a range of subjects including, safeguarding vulnerable adults, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), moving and handling, first aid and a range of topics specific to people’s individual needs. For example, dementia, diabetes, skin care, sepsis, and stroke awareness. Staff had also completed nationally recognised qualifications in health and social care, including the Care Certificate, which encouraged them to provide safe, compassionate care. Staff received on-going supervision for them to feel supported in their roles and to identify any future professional development opportunities. Staff confirmed they felt supported by the provider. There were safe and effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

Staff felt well supported by the provider and felt confident to raise any concerns. They felt they had sufficient travel time to appointments and were able to meet people’s needs. Staff confirmed they received thorough support supervision. The provider explained staffing arrangements matched the support commissioned and people were matched with staff who had the skills to meet their individual needs. They added that people received support from a consistent staff team. This ensured people were able to build up trusting relationships with staff who knew their needs. Where a person’s needs increased or decreased, staffing was adjusted accordingly. The provider explained that regular staff undertook extra duties in order to meet people’s needs.

People confirmed that staffing arrangements met their needs. They were happy with staff timekeeping and confirmed they always stayed the allotted time. Comments included, “If the carers are running late, outside of the half an hour window they always let mum know” and “The carers are kind and very well trained.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.