Afya 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

Staff and managers worked with people, relatives, key professionals and stakeholders to understand people’s needs before they started to support people. They identified people’s risks and ensured staff understood how to support people safely. However, staff would benefit from more direction in people’s care plans on how to mitigate people’s risks. There were sufficient, safely recruited staff to support people. Staff had received appropriate training to support people’s care and risk requirements. Staff felt supported but some staff felt they did not always receive regular individual support meetings. Systems and policies were in place to monitor and guide staff to ensure people’s personal care needs were being delivered safely.

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.

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

People and their relatives spoke positively about their initial assessment and introduction to the service. People were involved in the development of their care plan. We received comments such as “Yes, the care plan was done by the council, and I was involved in that. There is good communication between me and the council and any additional needs I have are clarified. "

Staff told us they were kept informed of changes in people’s care needs or the support people required via various forms of communication and access to the provider’s electronic care management system. New staff told us they were informed of people’s care needs and routines while shadowing their colleagues during their induction process. The registered manager and staff were aware of their role to escalate concerns about people's needs to appropriate health care services and to people's families when they had identified changes in people's health and well-being. They worked collaboratively with health care professionals to help maintain people's health and support them living in their own homes.

Local authority partners who commissioned the service raised no concerns about the management of people’s care and their care call times.

Processes were in place to ensure staff had the information they needed to support people when they first started to use the service. Information from known healthcare professionals, hospital discharge plans and local authority assessments helped to inform the person’s care and risk management plan. Staff had been trained in the importance of raising concerns when they observed changes in people's care needs and if they refused care. Information of concern was reported to the registered manager who escalated staff concerns to the relevant healthcare professional or service.

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

People and their relatives told us they were involved in the management of their care and risk assessments. Their views were acted on and respected. One person said, "Yes they listen to everything I say, if I want something done a different way they always try to accommodate." People told us staff supported them to liaise with key health care professionals when they needed additional support and helped them plan and prepare for medical appointments as needed.

Staff knew people well and were able to describe people’s need and how they supported people to help reduce and control their risks. Staff promoted people’s level of independence where possible and supported people to manage and make decisions about their own risks. The service had processes in place to check people’s care was being delivered according to their personal needs and support requirements. Staff and managers worked jointly with people, their families, and professionals to achieve good outcomes for people.

Staff had access to people’s care records which were detailed; however, they would benefit from more thorough guidance in the management of people’s risks and early warning signs of the decline of people’s health. This would reinforce staff training and ensure changes in people’s health were escalated in a timely manner. Working arrangements, communication systems with staff and quality checks were used to assist the registered manager in monitoring the quality of care being provided and to enable the provider to plan on-going improvements. Spot checks of staff and regular reviews of people’s care enabled the provider to understand people’s experiences of the care they received, and to make any adjustments to their care provision such as requesting additional support hours from the funding authorities.

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

People and their relative's experiences of staff was positive. They told us staff were kind and flexible. Staff were reliable and mainly punctual and communicated if they were running late. One person said, "If they are running late, they normally ring me within 5 minutes before the appointment time and they are never more than 15 minutes late." We received comments from relatives such as "Everything has been really spot on. They come up trumps. Every time they are very flexible" and "Staff are well trained, friendly, they ask questions if they don't know what they are doing. They communicate really well."

Most staff spoke positively about their recruitment process, moving to the UK to work and the support from management. They told us they felt trained to carry out their role. Staff stated communication and support from the office was generally good; however, some staff felt communication around last minute changes in staff’s rotas could improve. Whilst most staff felt supported and trained to their role; a small number of staff shared they did not always receive supervision meetings to discuss their work practices and challenges. We received mixed views from staff about the regularity and benefits off staff supervisions and spot checks.

Safe recruitment checks were being completed including previous employment, DBS checks and Right to Work in the UK checks; however, it was not always evident that the provider had followed up on any discrepancies in staff’s employment records. Staff received the training and support they required to deliver person centred care and to manage people's risks. Most staff had completed the care certificate as part of their induction process. Staff had been trained and assessed as being competent in managing people's medicines. Whilst regular staff meetings and staff observations ensured staff practices were safe and consistent when supporting people. We discussed the staff comments about the regularity of their supervision meetings with the registered manager who sated staff could contact them at anytime; however they agreed to implement a supervision and observation matrix to assist them in monitoring the frequency of staff support. Systems were in place to monitor punctuality and delivery of staff care calls. This enabled the registered manager to identify if people's individual call times met their needs. Any changes in people's care delivery or level of support were raised with the relevant commissioners. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to ensure staff had received relevant training in how to interact appropriately with people with a learning disability or autism. Progress was being made to ensure all staff are adequately trained in this area.

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.