Adopt Healthcare 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

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has improved to requires improvement. The provider had safe recruitment processes in place, and staff received the appropriate training. A new pre-assessment process was in place, and the provider had new protocols and procedures to follow for managing the safe administration of medication. Spot checks and supervisions were completed with staff embedding infection prevention and control practices. The provider had systems in place to protect people from abuse. There were no service users at the time of the assessment, so we were unable to see how staff and the registered manager were assessing and mitigating risks through the implementation of care plans and risk assessments.

This service scored 50 (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 no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment therefore we were unable to gain feedback for this quality statement. However, the provider has implemented new systems to monitor accidents and incidents.

The current systems in place did not demonstrate a consistent approach to show how lessons had been learned and improvements made. The provider had started to improve their systems to do this. They planned to invest in new technology to support them to do this.

No accidents or incidents had taken place since the last inspection as there was no-one using the service. This meant we were unable to review how effective the provider's processes were in learning lessons.

New processes were in place to support the provider to deliver care to new service users. We were unable to review the effectiveness of this process because there were no service users receiving care.

The provider has created a new pre assessment process, which informed a clearer assessment of needs prior to agreement or commencement of a care service. The registered manager explained their role in this process and stated, "During the admission process of new clients, it is my responsibility to carry out a pre-assessment of every client before service commencement and creation of personalised care plan. This care plan will be created in collaboration with the service user or representatives in relation to what matters in their care needs. We have created a template for this."

We have not received feedback from external stakeholders specifically relating to this quality statement. Therefore, we are unable to review the score for this quality statement.

We have seen an example of a blank pre-assessment form to be implemented by the provider for all potential new service users. However, there are no active service users therefore we are unable to see how this process is being completed in a live environment. We have no evidence of safe implementation of this, and therefore no consistency of the practice can be demonstrated by the provider.

There were no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment, therefore we were unable to gain feedback for this quality statement. However, we have reviewed the safeguarding logs kept since the last inspection and identified there had been no safeguarding concerns or incidents recorded. People were cared for by staff who had received safeguarding training and the provider had followed their safeguarding policy after the last inspection when liaising with the local authority safeguarding team.

Staff were able to describe their knowledge of safeguarding and confirmed they had received training in this, and explained how they would report any concerns. The registered manager told us at the start of the assessment there were no open safeguarding’s, however we found this to be factual inaccurate following the feedback we received from the local authority safeguarding team. The safeguarding's raised from the last inspection were still open and under investigation.

Staff were supported in their role with a safeguarding policy and training. Stakeholders raised concerns about communication from the provider which had led to delays in their safeguarding investigations.

There were no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment, therefore we were unable to gain feedback for this quality statement. We reviewed the care records for the last service user and identified a thorough care plan and risk assessments were in place to ensure the person was kept safe and free from risk of harm.

When staff were supporting service users, they said they had good knowledge of their needs and the care records supported them with this. Staff said, "The first thing I did when I was supporting [service users] was to read their care plan” and, "There was a risk of falls as indicated in [service user] care plans. However, measures were in place to mitigate this by the provision of handrails, the right mobility equipment, and keeping the floor free of clutter and liquid spills."

We have seen some improvements have been made in the quality of previous care documentation. However, as there were no service users at the time of the assessment, we were unable to see any live documents completed by the registered manager themselves.

There were no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment, therefore we were unable to gain feedback for this quality statement. At this assessment we found evidence the provider had implemented new environmental risk assessments on people's homes and had procedures in place to follow for new admissions. People were experiencing safe care in their own homes, which was being monitored for the safety of staff.

The registered manager explained their role in completing the risk assessments on people’s environment, and detailed how they would reduce risks and monitor these. Staff told us they felt safe going into the previous service users’ homes.

The provider had implemented a risk assessment for each person's environment which was to be completed at each assessment of a new service user. This was detailed and covers the properties, internally, externally and reviews their location for minimising risk to staff.

At the last inspection, there were enough staff to support people/service users safely. We were unable to reviewing staffing at this assessment because there were no service users.

Staff told us they had received all the training and support they required to do their roles and detailed how the registered manager conducted spot checks to review compliance. Staff described good morale, and an ability to request support from the registered manager whenever they required this. Feedback included details around specific training staff have had and how this was implemented, such as the safe administration of medication. Staff told us, "I feel supported, [registered manager] has an open-door policy that helps us to reach her for clarification in times of doubt." Another staff member told us, "I felt supported by my manager. [Registered manager] called during my shifts to know how I was getting along and if there were issues."

The provider had a safe recruitment policy and its process had been followed for the 2 staff members whose staff files we reviewed. All appropriate pre-employment checks and processes were completed prior to employment offers. All staff had received the training they required to provide safe care to people and the provider had an effective matrix to monitor when this training was next due.

There were no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment, therefore we were unable to gain feedback for this quality statement. However, we reviewed the spot checks completed on staff since the last inspection which showed staff were compliant with the infection prevention and control policy and wore appropriate uniforms and personal protective equipment when providing personal cares.

The registered manager said they carried out spot checks of staff to ensure they were compliant with IPC procedures. Staff confirmed this.

The provider had an up-to-date infection prevention and control policy which was being followed and effectively implemented. The provider was also able to evidence spot checks that had been completed on staff detailing compliance with infection control practices.

There were no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment, therefore we were unable to gain feedback for this quality statement. However, we were able to review the last service user's medication records which included a detailed medication care plan, appropriate risk assessments, PRN protocols and MAR sheets. All of the evidence we reviewed indicated the person was in receipt of medication which was being administered and monitored safely.

Staff told us they had received medication administration training and felt confident and competent to administer medication as they had received supervision and competency checks from the registered manager. One staff member told us, "I received medication administration training online. I also received an in-person training by my registered manager. The registered manager ensured I thoroughly understood my training before putting me on the rota and checked my competences by periodically calling on me to ask questions on medication administration."

We could not be assured the providers processes were safe because there were no service users receiving care.