Coyle Homecare

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

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed. Systems were in place to investigate accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding incidents. There was a system in place to manage medicines safely. Effective systems were in place to safely recruit staff. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were well trained and supported appropriately. Staff and management communicated and worked with other agencies to help keep people safe. Systems were in place to help prevent and control infections.

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.

Relatives told us they were able to openly speak with staff and the registered manager. They knew how to make a complaint and felt that their concerns would be listened to and addressed. A family member said, “We were informed as to how the company would deal with any issues or complaints if we had any and were very keen for us to contact them in the event of any issues we may have that we were unhappy with.”

Management focused on promoting a culture of learning within the service. Staff told us management and their colleagues helped them learn and improve practice. Lessons learnt were discussed in staff meetings and staff were encouraged to openly discuss and learn from one another.

A system was in place for managing incidents and accidents. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Policies and procedures were in place for investigating, analysing, and responding to accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding alerts.

Relatives told us they were informed and involved in people’s care and support planning. A relative told us, “I have been very involved with care planning and the company listen to our requests, making suggestions and recommendations to enhance [my family member’s] quality of life.” Another relative said, “We have been very involved with care planning and the carers always ask if we are happy for them to do things and engage well with [my family member] speaking to them all the time.”

Risks to people’s health had been identified. There was clear communication between the registered manager and other care professionals.

There was evidence that the provider worked well with care professionals. The referral and transition process was effective. Feedback obtained from care professionals was positive. They told us the service was responsive, transparent and well run.

The provider worked closely with other care professionals and the local authority. There was a referral and admission process in place. This meant people could feel confident they would receive joined up care.

When asked if relatives were confident their family members were safe in the presence of care staff, a relative said, “The carers are brilliant and they deliver safe care to my [family member].” Another relative said, “The care is provided in a safe way and we have never had any incidents occur that would cause concern.”

Staff told us they felt confident reporting concerns. They were able to describe the action they would take if they witnessed or suspected any abusive or neglectful practice. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities on how to help protect people from abuse and the actions they would take where there was an allegation of abuse.

Appropriate safeguarding procedures were in place which covered adults and children. 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 which covered adults and children. There was a system in place for recording safeguarding concerns which helped management have oversight over this.

Relatives were confident risks were managed and their family members were supported to remain safe. A relative told us, “The carers do everything that has been identified on the care plan and provide safe care.” Another relative said, “We have had no incidents or problems and we are extremely happy with the safe care being provided,10 out of 10.”

Management assessed risks to people's health and safety. They were able to describe how they supported people safely to reduce the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with told us they wouldn’t hesitate to raise concerns with management and had confidence that the appropriate action would be taken.

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed. Risk assessments included detail about how staff should support people. Risk assessments covered various areas such as the environment, transfers and medical conditions. They were person centred and included information about the level of risk, triggering factors and how to minimise the associated risk. Staff received training in areas of potential risk such as first aid, moving and handling and health and safety.

The provider had carried out an assessment of the environment during the initial stages of setting up the care package. The assessments carried out involved health and safety checks.

Where hazards were identified, measures were put in place to reduce the risks of harm to people. For example, staff checked for hazards in the bathroom before supporting a person with a shower or bath or staff would check equipment before using it such as a hoist. This helped to support people in a safe environment.

Processes were in place to ensure risks within the environment were assessed and monitored.

Relatives spoke positively about care staff. A relative told us, “The carers are all kind and very thoughtful.” Another relative said, “I am very impressed with the competence and professionalism of the carers and management staff. They are very on the ball, paying attention to detail and the carers are well matched with the experience to fit the need.” People received continuity of care. Care and support was provided by a stable and regular workforce that people were familiar with. This helped people and staff develop positive meaningful relationships.

Staff told us there were sufficient numbers of staff to safely meet people’s needs. They said that if staff were off work, appropriate cover was arranged. Staff spoke positively about communication within the service and said they were kept informed of changes and developments.

Policies and procedures were in place to help ensure staff recruited were assessed as safe to work with people. Checks on the suitability of potential staff were completed. This included obtaining references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and help prevent unsuitable people from working in care services. We were assured that there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills required to effectively meet their needs. Records showed that staff had received training in areas relevant to their roles. Staff received supervision sessions which provided an opportunity for them to discuss their performance and professional development.

Relatives told us staff used personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons. This was to prevent the spread of infections. Relatives told us they observed safe practices about preventing the spread of infections during the call visits. A relative said, “PPE is worn at all times when appropriate, particularly during care, and the carers are well trained in infection control and disposal of soiled products.” Another relative told us, “They wear their PPE during personal care and always wear gloves.”

Staff had a good understanding of infection, prevention, and control procedures. This meant people were protected from the risk of harm because staff knew how to prevent the spread of infections.

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

Relatives felt people were appropriately supported with their medicines. A relative told us, “They provide [my family member’s] medication and there have been no mistakes as everything is recorded.” Another relative said, “Medications are done safely and [my family member] gets their tablets on time.”

Staff spoke positively about the medicines training they had completed. Staff had their competency to administer people’s medicines safely assessed to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to do so. Staff told us they knew how to report medicines incidents and felt confident in doing so.

A medicines policy and procedure was in place. People’s medicines support needs were documented in their care plan. Care staff recorded medicines administration electronically. We looked at a sample of these and found that the majority of these were completed fully with no unexplained gaps. We noted there were some instances where medicines had not been administered and staff had documented this with the appropriate key but had failed to record further detail as to why the medicines had not been administered. We raised this with the registered manager, who advised that staff would receive refresher training covering this. Some people were prescribed PRN (as required) medicines. There were protocols for staff on when and how to administer PRN medicines. However, we noted that some of these lacked detailed personalised guidance for staff about giving people 'when required' medicines such as why, who and how a person should be given 'when required' medicines. We raised this with the registered manager who advised that they would review this and ensure the relevant information was included.