Careline Homecare (Newcastle)

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. A staff member told us, “We report any incidents to the office and get feedback at staff meetings.”

The service 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. Detailed information was collected before a person started to use the service and a passport of information was prepared to ensure their needs could be met, if they moved elsewhere. A person told us, “I was involved with saying what my needs were when I started with the service.”

Staff at the service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff and leaders had received training in safeguarding and understood their responsibilities in reporting safeguarding concerns to the appropriate agencies. People and relatives’ comments included,” I feel very safe with my care people”, “I am very pleased with them [staff] and always feel safe and trust them” and “[Name] is safe as the carers are second to none.”

Staff had completed risk assessments for people and had put some measures in place to mitigate those risks. However, not all risk had been identified, and included within people’s care plans. This meant staff may not have appropriate guidance on how to mitigate the risks in a consistent way. There had been no impact to people’s safety. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us it would be addressed.

Staff made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Risks associated with people’s individual environments were assessed before staff started supporting people within their homes. A person commented, “They [staff] came and checked around the house when we started with them 5 years ago.” A relative told us, “At the start staff checked to see if the house was safe.”

The registered manager made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. A staff member commented, “We get opportunities for training, we go into the office for face-to-face training and also do training online.” Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. People were supported individually or with 2 or more staff members to ensure they received safe care. A relative commented, “There are always 2 of them and they always wait for each other.” Most people told us rosters were well-managed, and they received support in a timely and consistent way. A relative told us, “We used to get lots of different carers but during the last two weeks [Name] has been getting the same ones which is good as continuity is important as [Name] gets confused” and “I get 3 regulars, and they always inform me who is coming and of course they have never missed.” However, some peoples’ and relatives’ comments indicated some improvements were needed to roster management. Their comments included, “I get a wide variety of carers at weekends”, “My only wish is that the carers could come at more predictable hours but bearing in mind how busy they are, they are doing a good job” and “Sometimes the carers are very late and don’t ring and I get lots of different carers, they just turn up.”

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff received training in infection control to make them aware of best practice. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available to staff to reduce the risks of infections spreading. A person commented, “They always wash their hands first and wear gloves.”

Some improvements were needed to medicine management. The service had a system to assess what medicine support a person needed. People were involved in planning about their medicines including when changes happened. There had been no impact to people’s safety, however some improvements were needed to medicine records. Some assessments were not sufficiently clear or contained conflicting information. Some people received support from staff with medicines, but this was not documented. Some people’s medicine lists in their care plans did not match the medicines listed on the medicine administration record [MAR]. Where care staff were involved in medicine administration alongside family members this was not clearly detailed. Improvements were needed in the records and guidance for creams applied by care staff and records for medicated patches.