Ohio Home Care Limited

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

A safe service was provided for people, and there enough appropriately recruited, and trained staff employed to meet their needs. This meant people were supported to live safely. Risks to people were assessed, monitored, and recorded, by the registered manager and staff when required. Accidents, incidents, and safeguarding concerns were reported, investigated, and recorded appropriately. Staff were trained to administer, prompt and support people to take their medicines, when necessary. Infection control procedures were followed.

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 said they felt safe, and were supported to understand and manage any risks. They were given information, and advice about health, care, support, and how to keep as physically, mentally, and emotionally well as possible.

The management team told us people’s safety was a priority, everyone’s responsibility, and maintained by being transparent, open, and learning from experiences where people may previously have been at risk. The management team supported staff, and encouraged them to raise any concerns so they could be minimised without restricting people's choices.

The provider processes enabled learning from previous incidents where people may have been at risk, promoting people’s safety as a priority whilst not limiting their choices and empowering them to take acceptable risks.

The registered manager and staff kept people safe by being knowledgeable regarding their duty to work collaboratively, using a joined up approach with people, within their teams, and healthcare professionals in a systematic, and planned way.

Healthcare professionals commented that the service worked with them by swapping appropriate information to keep people safe with their consent.

There were solid relationships with healthcare professionals, and systems in place to maintain people’s safety. The systems were followed, enabling continuity of safe care, and joined up working. The provider's policies, procedures, and processes were in line with current, relevant legislation.

People and their relatives said they felt safe using the service and the support they received was of a standard they required. They told us staff supporting people understood how to keep them safe. One person said, “They come morning lunchtime and evening. No, they don’t do any harm, no they are ok.” People and their relatives were confident in raising concerns, having them investigated appropriately and being provided with an outcome.

The feedback from staff, and the registered manager was positive regarding people receiving the standard of care and support they needed. The management team supported staff to safeguard people from the risk of abuse, and they achieved this by receiving relevant, up to date training. Staff knew how to recognise abuse, neglect, protect people from its different forms and to report any concerns to the registered manager. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to refer safeguarding incidents to the relevant external agencies without delay, ensure they were fully investigated and take appropriate proactive action to minimise the risk of similar incidents appening again.

The service had a safeguarding policy and procedures in line with current, relevant legislation. Records demonstrated that safeguarding concerns were reported to the registered manager, relevant external health care professional agencies promptly, and recorded. Where appropriate, people and those important to them were involved in this process and informed about what action would be taken to keep them safe. Care plans provided clear information and sufficient guidance to enable staff to keep people safe.

People and their relatives said the standard of care and support people received was good. Risks to people’s safety were professionally managed, without unnecessary restrictions in place. People and their relatives told us staff knew how to support people with identified risks, and that they were involved in planning the care they received which gave them the opportunity to decide what risks they were prepared to take.

The positive feedback from the registered manager, and staff demonstrated risks to people were professionally managed and staff received relevant training to help them keep people safe. Staff where aware of risks posed to people individually, and knew how to reduce the risk of injury or harm.

Any risks to people were identified, assessed, and recorded in care plans to help staff prevent or minimise the identified risks, where possible. The risks included supporting people with their personal care, and mobility. This meant staff had up to date information about the action they should take to manage risks and keep people safe. There were systems for staff to report concerns, incidents, and accidents. This enabled the provider to have oversight of and be able to manage risks. The registered manager completed regular audits and care plans were updated if new risks were identified.

People did not directly comment regarding a safe environment, as this was their own home. They did comment that they felt safe.

The registered manager, and staff told us prior to a service being provided an environmental risk assessment was carried out. This highlighted any issues that were forwarded to appropriate healthcare professionals regarding people’s homes, and to protect staff.

The environmental risk assessment process was followed before a service was provided. This highlighted any issues that were forwarded to appropriate healthcare professionals regarding people’s homes, and to protect staff.

People and their relatives told us their care and support needs were well met. This was because enough skilled staff were available to support them, and they received care when they needed it. One person told us, “They do their job then they go when they are meant to."

The registered manager and staff fed back that there were enough staff to support people with their care and support needs. The registered manager regularly reviewed staffing levels to ensure there were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff were given regular, relevant training to support them in their roles. They told us they were well supported by the registered manager and team to learn from and continuously improve their working practices. Staff said the training enabled them to deliver support and they were knowledgeable about the areas they received training in.

The staff duty rotas showed there were enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Pre-employment recruitment checks were completed prior to employment, to make sure that only appropriate, and suitable staff were supporting and caring for people. This included checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) who provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff file, including recruitment and staff rotas were included as part of the auditing system.

People told us that staff wear appropriate clothing to prevent, control, and reduce infection. One person said, “Yes, gloves, always and they wear their something when they give showers."

The management team were aware of the importance of keeping people’s homes and equipment clean, hygienic, and free of infection.

The people we spoke to did not require staff support to administer or prompt with their medicines.

The registered manager and staff said appropriate training was provided, refreshed, and that medicines administered were regularly audited by checking MAR sheet completion, and field co-ordinator spot checks, phone calls to people using the service, and welfare monitoring visits.

There were processes that were followed, recorded, and audited including MAR sheet completion, and field co-ordinator spot checks, phone calls to people using the service, and welfare monitoring visits.