Arale Group Limited Also known as Arale 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

People were safeguarded from abuse and risk of harm. Staff were knowledgeable about signs of abuse and how to report it. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed, however they needed further development as some did not have enough information for staff to follow. The provider recruited staff safely, all background checks were carried out before staff started in their role. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

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 relatives told us the agency provided safe care. Everyone we spoke with said the agency staff were very good and did their job well. One person said, “It’s good, they come in every day [named carer] they come at 10am. They are very good, they wear gloves and a mask. I am safe, very safe they are very good.” A relative said, “One person comes twice a day it is the same person who comes, but if they are off it is another one. We know, they are on time, but they call me if they are going to be late. I am sure [my relative] is safe with them.”

The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of safeguarding. Staff could explain different types of abuse and what signs and symptoms to look out for. Staff told us if they suspected or saw any form of abuse they would report it to the manager. The registered manager told us that safeguarding was a regular topic at team meetings.

The provider had a clear process in place to safeguard people against abuse. Staff received training in safeguarding, this meant they were able to pick up on any concerns and report them to their managers. There were safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place. This meant staff had guidance to use if needed.

People were involved in their care planning and reviews. One person told us, “We do have a care plan and they come and review it sometimes; we have never had a problem, but I would just ring them up and say if I did”. A relative said, “We have had it a year now and they came out and did a thorough assessment, all sorts of forms and risk things and they keep a daily record the carers come three times a day.”

Risks assessments were in place for people, however some of the assessments lacked some details in them. This meant staff would not have enough information to mitigate risks fully. We gave the provider feedback about this, and they told us they would review these assessments and include any missing information. Despite these issues staff were able to explain how they manage risks to ensure people were safe as staff knew them well.

There was a process in place to assess risks to people’s health and well-being, however the provider was made aware that some assessments were too vague and needed to be reviewed. People were involved in the care planning process including risk management plans.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Most people and relatives we spoke with told us staff were on time and the same staff came on a regular basis. In 2 cases people said they did not have a call from the office when staff were late. One relative said, “They come on time, they come in the morning for an hour but if they finish early they sit and talk to [my family member] then they come at 2pm for 45 minutes I am sure [my family member] is safe with them, I have to go to work and I don’t worry, they let me know if there is a problem.” People and relatives also commented on how well-trained staff were to do their job effectively.

Staff told us they had an induction into the service followed by a period of training for their role. Records showed staff had training in a range of topics. This meant people were supported by staff who were competent in their role. Staff told us they had regular meetings with line managers. Staff said this helped them to seek out guidance and resolve issues. One staff member said, “Yes I feel supported I go to the office the manager always asked me and care coordinator if I need anything and how things are going”. Another staff member said, “Yes have supervision every three months managers are always there to support at the end of the phone”.

The provider had a clear procedure in place to safely recruit staff. The provider carried out background checks including criminal checks prior to staff starting in their role. This helped to ensure that staff were fully vetted before taking up their employment. The provider had a clear process in place to deploy staff appropriately to ensure people’s needs were met.

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.