Bright Homecare

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

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff understood their duty to protect people from abuse and knew how and when to report any concerns they had. Managers and staff assessed and reviewed safety risks to people regularly and made sure people and those important to them, were involved in making decisions about how they wished to be supported to stay safe. Care plans were clear and provided sufficient guidance to staff to keep people safe. There were enough staff employed to carry out care visits. People told us that care workers attended on time and if they were running late, they were kept informed. Staff were given appropriate training which meant they could meet people’s needs.

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.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they felt safe in the presence of care workers. Comments included, “Yes, I feel safe” and “The carers look after me well.” People felt confident in raising any concerns and said the registered manager was approachable.

Staff understood how to recognise abuse and neglect, protect people from its different forms and to report any concerns. Comments included, “Safeguarding is protecting people from harm” and “If I have any concerns, I will report it to the manager straight away.”

The provider had clear processes in place with regards to care workers expectations in reporting abuse. Records showed staff received safeguarding training as part of their initial induction which was refreshed annually.

People told us staff knew how to support them with known risks such as mobility and diet and nutrition. A person said, “Staff help me to go to the bathroom” and “I have a hoist and staff know how to use it.”

Staff told us they received training to help them keep people safe at the service. This included training on equipment used to support people. For example, hoists to help people move and transfer safely. Staff understood risks posed to people they cared for and were able to explain how they supported people in a way that minimised risks.

The provider had effective processes in place in relation to risk management. Risk to people were assessed when they began to use the service. These included risk management plans to help and guide staff to minimise these identified risks. Risks assessments included area such as mobility, nutrition and hydration and personal care tasks. These were reviewed annually or as and when required. This meant staff had up to date information about the action they should take to manage these risks and keep people safe.

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 told us there were enough staff to support them and staff attended on time. A person told us, “I have regular staff, they do come on time. We have set times.” Another person said, “Yes, they come on time. The staff are good at telling me if they are running late.”

Staff told us they received regular training and were well supported by the registered manager. Comments included, “Yes we have training” and “I had a supervision a few months ago, the manager is always in close contact with us.” The registered manager told us, due to the size of the service, there was no electronic clocking in/out system used and they monitored the timeliness of the care workers through a series of spot checks and regular telephone monitoring.

There were robust recruitment procedures in place which helped to ensure that only staff that had been assessed as being safe to work with people were employed. These included checks on ID, proof of address, suitable references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) who provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. Training records showed staff attended relevant courses which enabled them to meet people’s needs. Training was refreshed at regular intervals so that staff stayed up to date with current practice. Supervision and appraisal records showed staff had regular supervision meetings and an annual appraisal of their overall work performance with their line managers to support them in their role and to identify any further training or learning they might need.

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.