Able Homecare Marylebone

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

The service people received was safe and there were suitable numbers of appropriately recruited staff employed to meet their needs. This meant people were supported to live safely. Any risks to people were assessed, monitored, and recorded, by the registered manager and staff as required. Accidents, incidents, and safeguarding concerns were reported, investigated, and recorded appropriately. Staff were trained to administer, prompt and support people to take their medicines, if required. Infection control procedures were followed.

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’s relatives said they felt very safe using the service and the support received was of the standard required by them. Relatives told us staff who supported people knew how to keep them safe. One relative said, “Very happy with the service, I feel it is safe.” Relatives were confident in raising any concerns they might have and knew how to do this if they felt there were any safety issues. Where possible, people and those important to them were supported to understand how to raise concerns when they did not feel safe. One relative said, “Very approachable, helpful and easy to deal with." Relatives told us staff gave good care and support in a friendly way, paying attention to small details that made all the difference. Staff acknowledged people’s rights to privacy, dignity and confidentiality, and people said they felt respected. People said staff were compassionate, cared about people and passionate about the people they provided a service to

Staff were supported, by the registered manager to safeguard people from the risk of abuse, and they had received relevant, up to date training to achieve this. Staff understood how to recognise abuse, neglect, protect people from its different forms and to report any concerns to the registered manager. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to refer safeguarding incidents to the relevant external agencies without delay, ensure they were fully investigated and to take appropriate proactive action to minimise the risk of similar incidents being repeated. They encouraged a culture where people, relatives, and staff could raise concerns without fear about what might happen. Staff knew their duty to protect people from abuse and how and when to report concerns they had to the registered manager. People and their relatives were supported by staff, to understand and manage risk. The registered manager, 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 provided clear information and sufficient guidance to enable staff to keep people safe.

The provider's safeguarding policy and processes were in line with current, relevant legislation. Records demonstrated any safeguarding concerns reported to the registered manager were recorded, and reported promptly to the relevant external agencies. Where appropriate, people and those important to them were involved in this process and informed about what action would be taken to keep people safe.

People and their relatives said they received a good standard of care. Any risks to people’s safety were well managed, without unnecessary restrictions. People’s relatives said staff knew how to support people with known risks and that they were involved in planning the care they received. One relative said, “Well trained, conscientious and flexible."

The feedback from the management team and staff demonstrated risks to people were safely managed and staff received relevant training to help them keep people safe. Staff understood risks posed to people and knew how they would reduce the risk of injury or harm.

Any risks to people were assessed, and care plans were in place to help staff prevent or minimise the identified risks, where possible. The risks included supporting people with their mobility, and personal care. This meant staff had up to date information about the action they should take to manage these risks and keep people safe. There were systems for staff to report concerns, incidents, and accidents. This enabled the provider to have oversight of and be able to manage risks. The management team completed regular audits and care plans updated if new risks were identified.

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’s relatives told us there were enough staff to support them. One relative told us, “Enough staff to meet [Person using the service] needs.” Another said, “Enough very skilled staff."

The management team and staff feedback demonstrated there were enough staff to support people with their care and support needs. The registered manager, reviewed staffing levels regularly to make sure there were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff were provided with regular, relevant training to support them in their roles, and they said they were well supported by the management team to learn and continuously improve their working practices. Staff told us about the training they had received, how it helped them to deliver support and were knowledgeable about the areas they received training in. The management team told us the service staffing levels were regularly reviewed to make sure there were always enough staff to meet people’s needs. There were systems in place for the provider to identify and monitor staff training requirements and ensure they remained relevant and up to date.

The staff duty rotas showed there were enough staff to meet people's needs safely. The provider ensured that pre-employment recruitment checks were completed prior to employment, to make sure that only staff deemed fit and suitable would be employed to support people using the service. This included checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) who provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Training records demonstrated that staff received relevant courses to support them to meet a range of people’s needs. Training was refreshed at regular intervals so that staff stayed up to date with current practice. A staff member said, “After getting proper training we start work under a senior who gives constructive feedback.” Supervision and appraisal records demonstrated that 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. Staff were well supported by the management team during individual supervision, and appraisals of their overall work performance. They were able to discuss their job roles in order to continuously learn and improve their working practice.

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.