AOK Care 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

We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations in relation to fit and proper persons employed. Recruitment practices were not robust. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. The service had made improvements to their risk assessments. Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and risk assessments were in place to help protect people. The registered manager confirmed that staff did not provide medicines support at present. Systems were in place to help investigate accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding and learn from these. Staff had completed training relevant to their role. Systems were in place to help prevent and control infections. Staff and management communicated and worked with other agencies where required to help keep people safe.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

A system was in place to report, record and monitor incidents and accidents to help support people safely. The registered manager told us that they had not had any accidents or incidents since the last inspection. There were therefore no records of any accidents or incidents. We noted that an accident/incident policy and reporting form was in place.

People and relatives told us the service met their needs and they were confident that action would be taken if they raised concerns and issues. Relatives told us they were able to easily contact the registered manager and were confident they would be listened to.

The service worked with people and healthcare professionals to help establish and maintain safe systems of care where people’s safety was monitored and managed. Continuity of care for people as promoted. Staff kept important information about people up to date so that this was easily accessible.

Relatives told us the service kept them informed and updated of people’s care and support.

People and relatives were confident that care staff provided safe care. A person told us, “I do feel safe.” A relative said, “I am confident that [family member] is safe. That is the main priority. Safety is important. [My family member] is well looked after.”

Staff told us they felt confident reporting concerns to management and wouldn’t hesitate to do so. However, not all staff were aware that they could report their concerns to the local authority safeguarding team.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities of how to help protect people from abuse and the actions they would take where there was an allegation of abuse.

Safeguarding procedures were in place. These provided guidance about the action to take if staff had concerns about the welfare of people. Training records showed staff had completed safeguarding training.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed. People and relatives told us they felt staff provided safe care which met their needs.

The registered manager explained that they had reviewed all people’s risk assessments since the last inspection and had taken active steps to improve this area. They had implemented more detailed and robust risk assessments to help protect people. These were also in place for specific health conditions such as epilepsy.

Staff had completed training to understand how to safely care for people and mitigate risks. This included training in areas of potential risk such as basic life-saving skills and health and safety.

The service carried out an initial assessment of people’s home environment to help identify risks so that they could help control potential risks in their home.

The provider was unable to demonstrate that they had effective recruitment and selection procedures and we found a breach of regulation in relation to this.

Recruitment practices were not always robust, and it was not always evident that staff were recruited safely. We looked at staff files and found that 2 references were not always obtained for care staff. There was also no evidence to confirm that references had been verified to check their authenticity. In most instances, character references were obtained instead of employment references. The reason for not obtaining an employment reference was not clearly documented. Where an employment reference was obtained, clear details of the referee were not always available.

Staff files did not always fully document recruitment checks. For example, application forms were not always completed or were partially complete. The questions asked at interviews were not consistently recorded. These should be recorded to ensure fairness for candidates and to demonstrate how the provider determined staff were suitable enough to be recruited.

We raised the shortfalls in relation to recruitment checks with the registered manager who advised that they would take action to address the issue.

Records showed that staff had received training in areas relevant to their roles. There was evidence that staff received some form of supervision. However, these were not carried out at regular intervals and records were limited in respect of what was discussed during these sessions.

Care and support was provided by a stable and regular workforce that people and relatives were familiar with. Feedback obtained indicated that staff arrived on time and completed their duties well.

Staff told us they were supported by management. Staff spoke positively about communication within the service and said they were kept informed of changes and developments.

People and relatives told us care staff followed infection control processes, including washing their hands, keeping people’s home’s clean and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).

Staff had completed training about infection prevention and control. Staff told us they had enough PPE.

Infection prevention and control policies were in place. Staff were given the information and guidance they needed.

The registered manager confirmed that the service did not provide medicines support to people at the time of this assessment. Relatives we spoke with confirmed this.

The registered manager explained that they may support people with medicines in the future but before doing this staff required comprehensive medicines training. There was no evidence staff had completed medicines training.



A medicines management policy was in place.