Stokely Healthcare 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 team meetings take place monthly were and updates and improvements are discussed. One professional told us a recent safeguarding enquiry report completed by the provider was thorough and honest with clear learning identified and an action plan put in place.

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. A professional told us, “I was very impressed with the work involving a complex individual they provide support for. This involved a transition from the person’s family home to a flat on his own. This appeared to happen in a seamless way.”

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. People felt safe with the staff that supported them. Comments included, “The carers are all very good and kind, good understanding of my needs and I can fully understand them, I feel quite safe no sign of any abuse ever” and “He does feel safe with the care he is given, certainly no abuse, they all have a very gentle manner”. Staff received safeguarding training and understood the process should they have any concerns. Where needed, appropriate applications were completed to authorise a person being deprived of their liberty.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People had risk assessments in place. These included risks related to mobility and falls, eating and drinking, and delegated tasks by health care professionals, for example percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). The service supported positive risk taking and provided examples of this.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Risks associated with the environment were assessed before the service started supporting people within their homes.

The service did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always work together well to provide care that met people’s individual needs. Some people told us they did not always have free flowing conversations with staff due to English not being staffs’ first language. The provider was aware and taking actions to address this and support staff. Some people told us they were not supported by consistent staff, and whilst most comments were positive, 2 people told us staff didn’t always stay for the whole planned visit. Comments included, “It frustrates [relative] if he doesn’t see the same faces and can get defensive with new people, he cannot always understand them”, and “She is always on time, lets me know if she is delayed and always stays her allocated time.” At the last inspection we found the call monitoring system in place did not enable effective monitoring to take place due to mobile signals within people's homes. At the time of this inspection this was still a concern. We analysed the timesheet data from the providers electronic monitoring system and found some concerns. However, the data was not accurate due to poor mobile signals and staff not using the system correctly. The manager was aware of the issues and provided assurances. Staff were recruited safely and received effective support, supervision, training and development. For example, staff had undertaken training in how to support autistic people and how to support people with a learning disability.

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 told us they had access to the personal protective equipment (PPE) they required, and people confirmed staff wore this when required. Staff received infection control training and competency checks.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. There were policies and processes in place to ensure people received their medicines safely. Staff received training and competency checks. One person told us, “Carers do understand my needs, give me my medication in the morning in a pot, I am happy and understand what I am being given.” A relative told us, “Carers give him his medication, they give it, reorder the prescription and I pick it up, all works well."