Pharma Homecare LTD

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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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 provider had a process to investigate when things go wrong and identify actions to reduce possible risks. The registered manager confirmed that no incidents and accidents had occurred, or complaints received since the previous inspection of the service. Relatives explained they understood how to raise concerns or complaints with the provider, but they did not have a reason to raise any concerns at the moment. A relative confirmed when they raised an issue in the past it was resolved, and they received an apology. The registered manager told us they had a system to share the outcomes of an investigation following an incident or complaint through the use of electronic messaging and monthly team meetings.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The provider had a process to ensure the service could meet the person’s support needs before the care package started. The registered manager said that when they received a request to provide a care package the support needs of a person were identified through discussion with the person to ensure the service could meet their needs. The registered manager said they would not take on a care package unless they were confident the service could meet the person’s identified support needs.

The provider had a process to safeguard people from possible abuse and neglect. The registered manager confirmed there had been no safeguarding concerns raised since the last inspection. Care workers had completed training on safeguarding adults, so they understood how to identify and report possible abuse. Care workers demonstrated that they understood what safeguarding meant and how this related to providing care.

Risks in relation to a person’s health and wellbeing were identified and management plans developed. Relatives told us they felt their family member was safe when they received care in their home. Care workers were provided with guidance on how to support people to reduce possible risks and maintain their independence. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated if there had been a change in a person’s needs which impacted an identified risk. People and relatives were involved in the review of the risk assessments.

The provider completed risk assessments of the person’s home environment. The registered manager explained the environmental risk assessments included a fire safety assessment and any risks inside and outside the home. A personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) was also completed providing guidance for the care worker on how to support the person in case of an emergency.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Relatives confirmed their family member was supported by the same group of care workers who arrived on time and stayed for the full time of the visit. A relative told us, “We are fortunate to have the same care worker all the time and the care worker covers with [a care worker from another service] to ensure consistency. The care worker understands [family member’s] needs.”

The provider had a robust process for recruitment which included references from previous employers, if the applicants had the right to work in the United Kingdom and criminal record checks. New care workers shadowed an experienced care worker, completed a detailed induction, competency assessments and all care workers had regular supervision meetings.

The provider had processes for managing infection prevention and control. Relatives confirmed that care workers following infection control procedures and used appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when they provided care. Care workers confirmed they had completed training, were supplied with PPE and the provider carried out regular spot checks to monitor the care workers knowledge and that they followed best practice in relation to infection prevention and control.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Care workers completed training on the administration of medicines and their competency and understanding of best practice was assessed. Relatives confirmed that, where the support need was identified, the care workers supported their family member with their medicines, and they felt they had appropriate training to provide this support. Care workers completed medicine administration records (MAR) which included the dosage and frequency of administration for each medicine prescribed. The provider carried out monthly checks on the MAR to ensure medicines were administered safely and as prescribed.