Great North 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

Rosters were well-managed to ensure people received safe, timely and consistent care from staff whom all knew their care and support needs. Effective systems were in place to proactively identify and manage risks before safety events happened. Incidents and complaints were investigated and reported. Lessons were learned from safety incidents or complaints, to reduce their re-occurrence. People and staff told us they felt confident that they would be listened to, and any concerns raised would be addressed. Accessible information was available about people if they moved between services to ensure their safety and continuity of care. People, and relatives felt included in decisions about their care, including how risks were managed to support them to continue with day-to-day tasks safely. Staff received training that was relevant to their roles and responsibilities. They received support and regular supervision with opportunities for personal development. There was robust recruitment of new staff. Systems were in place to promote good infection prevention and control.

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 told us they felt safe and staff responded when they needed support. A relative told us, “I am happy to contact them about anything.”

Staff told us communication was effective. They said they were encouraged to report incidents. Any incidents about people's safety was discussed with staff in a timely way, with action taken to mitigate further risks. A staff member commented, “There is good sharing of learning.”

People received safe care because staff learned from safety alerts and incidents. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately, and the management team investigated them, and shared lessons learned. The registered manager analysed incidents and near misses on a regular basis so that any trends could be identified, and appropriate action taken to minimise any future risk.

People were supported to ensure their health needs were met. Information was collected about people before they started to use the service to ensure the service could provide appropriate care and support and was available if they moved between services to ensure their safety and continuity of care. A relative commented, “We had a meeting, and went over things [Name] likes to do, the way [Name] is, their likes and dislikes, staff got to know us as well.”

Staff were aware of when people had health or social care professional input. They said they felt confident working with other agencies. Recommendations from health professionals or other professionals had been implemented.

Staff worked with other professionals to help ensure people’s needs were met. A professional told us, “I have been very impressed with the service and could not ask for anything more for my client.”

Systems were in place for staff to work with people and partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed, monitored and assured. Information such as a hospital ‘passport’ containing standardised information about people’s care and support needs was available to ensure people received a continuity of care when either visiting another service or were discharged from the service. Before a person started to use the service, information was collected to ensure their needs could be met by staff and that the service was right for the person, as well as the person being right for the service. People, their relatives, health and social care professionals were involved in the planning.

People told us they trusted staff and felt safe with their support. A person commented, “I am happy with the care, and I feel safe with staff” and, “Staff are very patient.”

Staff members told us they had received training about safeguarding. They knew to raise any safeguarding concerns to management, they said they felt confident they would be dealt with appropriately.

Processes were in place to protect people from avoidable harm, unfair treatment, or abuse. Staff had received training on identifying and reporting abuse and knew what action to take if they identified abuse. Concerns were reported to the local authority as appropriate. Safeguarding incidents were investigated appropriately. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Records around people’s capacity contained all relevant information and were completed in line with national guidance. Records showed mental capacity assessments had been completed with people and their representatives. People’s capacity and ability to consent was taken into account, and people and their representatives had been involved in planning their care and support. Where people could not make decisions and consent to their care, there were processes in place to make sure any decisions would be made in their best interests.

People, and relatives felt included in decisions about their care, including how risks were managed to support them to continue with day-to-day tasks safely. A relative told us, “[Name] goes out with staff and they are kept very safe.”

Staff understood where people required support to reduce the risk of avoidable harm. Staff knew the risks to people and told us they were kept up to date if there had been any changes to people's care and support needs.

Processes were in place to assess and manage risks to people’s safety. Staff worked well with people to understand and manage risks. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risk assessments and care plans, contained information on the actions staff needed to take to keep people safe, including managing risk in relation to people's health conditions.

Staff supported people safely and appropriate equipment was available if people needed assistance. A relative commented, "Staff are very good. I don’t interfere when they are giving [Name] a shower because they know exactly what they’re doing."

Staff told us they had received training in safe working practices and they felt safe working at the service. They said they had appropriate equipment to move people safely and had received training on how to use it. They felt supported when management were not on duty as an on-call system was available to provide support and guidance, in an emergency. A staff member told us, "We always work to give the best to clients, compassion is important and so is safety."

Environmental risks were assessed, with measures put in place to remove or reduce the risks. Regular health and safety checks were completed, this included of any equipment used such as hoists.

People and relatives were positive about the relationships they developed with staff. They told us they received continuity of care, with staff who understood their needs and preferences. A relative commented, “Some days we have different people, but we have our regular ones too. We get rotas, staff have to have days off”, and “We have the same 4 staff at the moment and that works well.” People and relatives said staff arrived when they expected them to and they stayed for the correct length of time. A person told us, “Staff don’t rush, they do their job. They help me if I need anything doing, they are very good, they go above and beyond.” People and relatives told us they were supported by staff who were competent and had the right skills to support them. A relative commented, “I think the staff are really good, they are the best we have had.”

Staff told us staffing levels were sufficient to help ensure people’s needs were met in a safe and timely way. Staff reported they worked as a team, and they received training to help meet people’s needs and provide safe support. Staff member’s comments included, “I think training is good standard, I find it helpful. It is good to have refreshers to sharpen knowledge”, and “Specific training relating to individual client needs will is provided when identified. This will be provided for all staff, not just those supporting that individual in case other staff need to cover.”

Rosters were managed effectively so people received care when they needed it. People received care from a reliable and consistent team. Safe recruitment practices were followed to help ensure people were protected from staff unsuitable to work in the care sector. New staff had appropriate pre-employment checks in place which included photo identification, work history, references and a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check in place. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held. Staff received training to give them insight into people’s care and support needs. A system of supervision and appraisal was in place to help staff.

People were positive about staff use of personal protective equipment [PPE] as they supported people. They told us staff wore PPE.

Staff told us personal protective equipment (PPE) and all cleaning materials needed were available. They confirmed they had received infection control training.

Infection Prevention and Control [IPC] policies and procedures were in place. They showed detailed information to guide staff in the actions to take to ensure they followed safe practices to prevent the spread of infections.

People and relatives told us they were supported to receive their medicines safely. A relative commented, “Staff pick up [Name]’s medicine so I don’t have to go out and do it.”

Records showed and staff told us they had completed medicine training and had been assessed as competent. We saw details of medicines audits completed, these had not identified any issues.

Medicines were mostly managed safely. However, some improvements were needed in the records and guidance for creams applied by care staff. Some records were made in the daily notes, but these did not detail which topical preparation was used or where it was applied. A process for ensuring people received visits to give time sensitive medicines at the right time was in place. However, we saw that 1 person on regular pain relief did not have a 4-hour gap between some visits. Policies and procedures were in place to support the safe administration of medicines. Care plans were in place to describe what support people needed with medicines. Medicine administration records (MAR) were completed with few gaps and included recording people’s allergies.