Stennack Homecare Limited

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’s care plans did not always provide staff with specific guidance on how to manage and mitigate risks in relation to self-neglect. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and how to support their mobility needs. There was no evidence of missed care visits and people said their staff were normally on time and provided the support needed. Rotas showed the service had enough staff to provide all planned care visits. Disclosure and Baring service checks had been completed for all staff. However, gaps in employment histories had not consistently been explored. Following feedback improvement were made to risk assessments in relation to self-neglect and additional guidance provide and training planned for staff responsible for recruitment.

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 and their relatives were confident the staff team would ensure people’s safety. Their comments included, “I feel quite safe, yes I am safe" and "The girls are fine, they're all really good."

Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood local safeguarding procedures. They described the actions they would take to ensure any safety concerns were reported and investigated.

Feedback was sought from people using the service on the performance of new members of staff during their probationary period. Where adverse comments were received in relation to staff actions these issues had been investigated and appropriate disciplinary action or additional training and support provided to the staff as necessary. The provider had systems in place to ensure all safety concerns were investigated and action taken to ensure people’s safety. Records showed the service had made appropriate safeguarding alerts to the local authority when necessary.

People’s care plans did not consistently provide staff with sufficient detailed guidance on the management of known risks. For example, on the first day of our inspection, one person’s care records indicted they were at risk of self-neglect but no information had been given to staff on how to manage this risk. Following feedback, this person’s care plan was updated and necessary guidance provided to the staff team. Records showed the service made prompt referrals to health services in response to changes in people’s needs. During the site visit information about a change in one person’s condition was appropriately shared with their GP. The service had appropriate emergency procedures in place and there was a system in place to ensure people safety during periods of travel disruption.

People and their relatives were appreciative for the support their staff had provided with mobilising. They described how staff had completed risk assessments and made appropriate changes to reduce trip hazards. Comments received included, "I think they minimise the risk of falls" and “[My relative's] not steady on their feet. They are OK on their frame for short periods. [My relative] had falls with the previous agency but not this one. I trust [these carers].”

Staff understood how to manage risk to people’s wellbeing and had received appropriate training on how to support people to move around their homes safely.

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 were complimentary of their care staff and no concerns were reported in relation to planned visits being missed. People were happy their visits were normally provided on time and met people’s needs. People’s comments included, “They're more or less on time, 10 or 15 minutes either way", "They're pretty good at timekeeping. There's a fairly regular selection [of carers that come]" and "They're not too bad at being on time. They call or send a text if they're caught up and going to be late”. Relatives were also confident people’s support was provided at a reasonable pace and told us, “They don't rush [my relative]. They never attempt to hurry [Them]” and “They do seem a little rushed at times but [my relative's] never felt under pressure."

Staff feedback in relation to travel time between consecutive visits was variable. Most staff reported they had sufficient travel time between visits. A small number of staff said they did not receive travel time between all care visits but recognised this did not adversely impact on the quality of support people received. Staff all reported that the service had enough staff to provide all planned care visit. Their comments included, “There is definitely enough staff” and “We are asked to do more visits, if someone is sick but not normally. I think there are enough staff”. Staff and managers were confident no visits had been missed. They said, “We’ve had no missed visits”, “I have never heard of a visit being missed” and "No one has had a missed visit, never."

Disclosure and Baring Service checks had been completed for all staff to ensure their suitability for employment in the care sector. Other pre-employment checks had not been consistently completed and we identified incidents where gaps in employment histories had not been fully explored. The registered manager had identified prior to the inspection that staff responsible for recruitment required further training and this had been booked. Rotas showed people normally received their visits on time. Managers and office staff monitored the call monitoring data in real time to ensure all planned care visits were provided. Where staff had not recorded their arrival times manager called the staff involved, to confirm specific visits were underway. On the day of our inspection, one staff member was unexpectedly unavailable, so change had been made to other staff members visits schedules to ensure all planned visits were provided. Where visits were shorted than planned, staff recorded the reason for their early departure in the person’s daily care records. People told us, "Sometimes you don't get the full half hour. They might finish early. There might be ten or fifteen minutes left. They always ask if there's more they can do, but there isn't. I tell them they can leave."

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.