Aniis Care

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 requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. People received safe care and treatment. Risks to their safety and wellbeing were assessed and planned for. They received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed. People were supported with transitions between services because the provider communicated clearly with others and made sure they were aware of people’s needs. There were enough staff to support people and keep them safe. Staff had the skills, knowledge and competencies to care for people in a safe way. The provider had systems to learn when things went wrong and to make improvements because of these.

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.

There were systems to learn when things went wrong. People and their relatives confirmed they were involved in discussions about how to improve the service following incidents and accidents. The staff recorded any adverse events, and these were investigated. The management team discussed these with staff in order for them to learn from these. The provider kept detailed audits of the service. These included lessons learnt and improvements which needed to be made each month following a review of how the service had operated.

The provider supported people with their transition between services. They had developed records which detailed people’s health and communication needs. These were designed to be used as quick reference tools to support any professional working with the person. The provider had liaised with other services to make sure they had the information needed following a change in circumstance. For example, when a person had been discharged from hospital.

There were systems to help protect people from abuse. People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe. One relative explained, ‘’I completely trust the staff and that gives me peace of mind.’’ The staff undertook training about safeguarding and were able to explain how they would recognise and report abuse. The managers discussed safeguarding processes with the staff during team and individual meetings. The provider had worked closely with the local safeguarding authority when there had been safeguarding concerns. They had helped to investigate these and put in place plans to protect people from harm and abuse.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed and planned for. The provider completed risk assessments with people they were supporting and their families. They included information about how to minimise risks and how to support people safely. The provider had also included fact sheets and information about people’s health conditions and the risks associated with these and about equipment people used. There was evidence the provider had carried out reassessments and updated plans when people’s needs changed. For example, after a person had fallen and following hospital discharges. People using the service, and their relatives told us they thought risks were well managed. The staff completed training to help them support people in a safe way, for example when supporting people to move.

The provider assessed people’s home environment to help identify any potential hazards. They offered people advice and support if they felt it might be safer for them, or staff supporting them, if changes to the environment or equipment were needed.

There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. People using the service and their relatives told us they were cared for by the same familiar staff, that staff arrived on time and that they were skilled. Their comments included, ‘’They are well trained with lots of experience'’ and ‘’The carers come on time and stay the full duration.’’ The staff told us they had enough time for their visits and to travel between people’s homes. They explained they had opportunities for training and sharing information. The external professionals who gave us feedback commented that staff were knowledgeable and attended a range of appropriate training courses. There were systems to ensure only suitable staff were recruited. These included checks on their identify, eligibility to work in the United Kingdom, references from previous employers and checks on any criminal records. The provider carried out interviews and assessed staff knowledge and competencies. All new staff completed an induction and a range of training.

There were effective systems to help prevent and control infection. The staff had training to understand about good infection prevention and control. People using the service and their relatives told us staff followed procedures, using gloves and aprons when needed and washing their hands. The provider carried out spot checks to make sure staff were caring for people safely. These checks included making sure infection prevention and control processes were being followed.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. People confirmed this telling us they had the support they needed. Staff were trained so they knew how to handle medicines appropriately and the provider assessed their knowledge and competencies. Care plans included clear details about people’s medicines and any risks associated with these. Staff kept records to show when medicines had been administered and any problems with this. The provider carried out audits of medicines management to make sure procedures were followed.