Solution Care 247 Northamptonshire

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. ​ This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. During the assessment, we found the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and safe administration of medicines.

This service scored 56 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. People and their relatives did not report any safety incidents to us and told us the registered manager took action to address any incidents that had occurred. A relative said, “I reported the incident, the company were very apologetic and said they would follow this up, which they did and it has not happened again.” We were not provided with any documented evidence of any accidents or incidents during the assessment. The registered manager told us they had a system in place for staff to report any incidents to them so they could identify any trends, patterns and learn lessons. Whilst we were assured the registered manager would take action to address concerns raised by people or their families, we were not assured the provider had an effective system in place to identify potential risks to service users and staff. Therefore, there was a risk opportunities for learning and improvement would be missed.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. However, people’s safety was not always managed or monitored. The registered manager and provider worked with people, relatives and partners to establish plans of care and support prior to people receiving a service. A guide was in place to provide people with important information about the service. People’s records of care were stored electronically which enabled the service to provide up to date information to healthcare partners, such as the emergency services, when required. However, these were not always updated or reflective of people’s current care and support needs. For example, 1 person’s care plan detailed them as being allergic to a certain type of medication. However, the person had this type of medication listed as being prescribed to them. This meant care records were not always accurate. The registered manager assured us they would address this following the assessment.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff had received training in safeguarding and demonstrated an awareness and understanding of the types of abuse people may experience. Staff told us they would report any concerns to the registered manager. However, we were not assured staff would know who to contact outside of the organisation to report safeguarding concerns. We informed the registered manager of this. The registered manager understood their responsibilities in reporting safeguarding concerns to the relevant agencies, including the local authority.

People and their relatives told us the service provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. However, risks to people had not been fully documented to provide staff with information on how to manage and mitigate risks. For example, risk assessments had not been implemented to assess and mitigate risks to a person who smoked and had been prescribed emollient creams to be applied to their body which were highly flammable. This placed the service user at increased risk of harm Risks associated with people’s health conditions had not been assessed to identify and put measures in place to reduce potential risks to people. For example, 1 person was at risk of experiencing seizures due to their epilepsy and risks associated with this had not been assessed. This meant people were placed at increased risk of harm, as staff did not have the information available to them on how to mitigate risks to the people they supported.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Environmental risk assessments were carried out by the service to ensure any risks to people and staff were identified and mitigated. However, the registered manager did not always assess risks associated with the use of equipment, such as wheelchairs and stair lifts, to ensure staff had the information and knowledge to ensure safe care when using the equipment. For example, 1 person used a wheelchair for mobilising and risks associated with the use of wheelchairs, such as foot entrapment, had not been assessed for measures to be put in place to mitigate this risk. People told us they felt safe when staff used equipment to support them. A person said, “I do not feel unsafe in the hoist, the carers know what they are doing.”

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. People did not experience missed or late care visits as staff rotas were effectively managed by the registered manager to ensure people’s needs were always met. A relative told us, “Even in adverse weather and in spite of having to cover large distances between one patient and the next the carers maintain surprising punctuality and if there is ever a road hold up, they will call to let us know.” A person told us, “I never feel rushed during the care calls.” Staff were recruited safely and had received training and ongoing support from the service. People told us they felt staff were adequately trained.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff had received training in controlling and preventing the spread of infections. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons to reduce the risk and spread of infection. The provider carried out spot-checks on staff to ensure they wore PPE where required when supporting people.

The provider did not make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs. People did not always receive their medicines in a safe way or as per manufacturers instructions. Information was not always made available to staff about how to support a person to take their medicines safely. Care plans or protocols were not in place for ‘as required’ medicines. This meant staff did not have the information of when, how and who should administer this medicine. Where people had been prescribed external medicines such as creams, information was not made available to staff including where to apply the medicine on the body. This meant people were at risk of not receiving their external medicines as prescribed. Staff had received training to administer people’s medicines and had been assessed as competent by the registered manager and provider to administer medicines safely. However, we identified 1 person had been supported by staff to take their medicines without the required duration between each dose. This increased the risk of harm to the person and meant we could not be assured staff had the knowledge and skills required for administering medicines safely.