Homescare Ltd - Peacehaven

People lived safely, protected from avoidable harm. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew what steps to take in the event of an incident. Staff had been recruited safely. There were no records kept of the induction process completed for new staff and some staff told us they had not received all training modules. Staff knew how to report accidents and incidents however there were no processes in place for capturing lessons learned. Errors were found on medicine administration records (MAR). People and their loved ones described smooth transitions between services. Day to day staff managed risks to people. However, some risks had not been identified and some care plans did not have risk assessments in place to advise staff, for example, some people lived with catheters and there was a lack of instruction for staff. The service was clean throughout with plentiful supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE). The service environment was clear of trip or other hazards however there was no evidence to suggest that actions from the most recent fire service inspection had been completed.

A pre-assessment process was in place carried out by senior staff however some relatives told us they had not been involved in the assessment process. People’s health and social care needs were met by the service who worked with other statutory partners to achieve the best outcomes for people. People had access to the services they needed. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met by a team of cooks that knew people well and were aware of people’s allergies, likes and dislikes. Staff knew people well and knew about the importance of gaining consent from people before carrying out any task or activity. Not all mental capacity assessment pre-admissions had been completed and the registered manager was receiving support from the local authority to achieve this.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. People’s dignity and privacy was maintained and respected by staff. Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals, conversations were often person centered and people looked comfortable and happy chatting with staff. People’s independence was maintained within the confines of safety. People were encouraged to carry out tasks for themselves but staff were available to support if needed. Most of the time staff responded in a timely way to calls or requests from people.

Care provided by staff was person centered and met the needs of people. Working with other health and social care professionals, the service made sure people received the most appropriate support needed. People’s communication needs were met. Although some people and relatives were not aware of the complaints process, everyone told us they were confident to approach managers if there was a concern. There were a range of activities that people could be involved with either in groups or one to one. Not all staff had been trained in end of life care and this area of care had not been discussed with people.

The registered manager was managing three services at the time of this assessment. Staff told us that the registered manager was approachable but not always available. There were areas where the service required improvement for example, formal processes for capturing staff feedback and auditing processes. These were acknowledged by the registered manager but any changes needed time to embed into daily practice. Similarly, the management and oversight of care plans was currently being developed and a process for capturing learning and promoting and sustaining improvements in the service.