Fawaz 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

There were systems to help make sure accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding alerts were investigated and learnt from. However, the provider had not had any incidents, accidents, safeguarding alerts or complaints. Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and risk mitigation plans were in place. The provider had systems to help prevent and control infection. Staff did not administer medicines as people self-administered or family administered. There were enough staff to care for people. The provider had recruitment and supervision processes which enabled them to assess the competency and suitability of care workers.

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.

People and their relatives knew who to speak with if they wanted to raise a concern. However, no concerns had been raised. Relatives told us they were involved in regular reviews and could discuss any changes they wanted.

Staff confirmed the registered manager helped them learn and improve their practice. Team meetings provided the opportunity to discuss concerns or incidents.

There were processes for investigating, analysing, and responding to accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding alerts. However, they had not received any incidents, complaints or safeguarding alerts.

The registered manager told us the care packages of people using the service were funded privately and they worked closely with people to ensure they received the support they needed. Both people using the service lived with relatives who managed any referrals. However, if required, the provider could refer to other professionals. For example, staff spoke with one person’s GP because their relative was busy and asked staff to ring. The registered manager made an appointment and collected the person’s medicines.

The provider was not known to the local authority as there had been no safeguarding alerts and the people using the service were not funded by the local authority.

The provider carried out thorough assessments prior agreeing a care package. Any information shared by other healthcare professionals was taken into account.

People’s relatives confirmed they felt the person was safe receiving care from the service in their own home.

Staff had received training around safeguarding and knew how to respond to concerns including abuse. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and what actions to take to help safeguard people from abuse.

Appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures were in place for safeguarding people from abuse. At the time of the inspection, no safeguarding alerts had been raised but if they were, the registered manager would work with the local authority, to report and investigate concerns to help keep people safe.

People and their relatives felt risks were well managed. One relative said, “The staff are aware of risks but I am always there watching.” Staff completed relevant training to help keep people safe. Staff confirmed they could access people’s care plans and risk assessments. They had training to help understand about best practice when supporting people to move, looking after people’s skin and using equipment. The staff told us this training had helped them in their roles.

The provider had systems and processes in place to help keep people safe including risk assessments and risk management plans. These were regularly reviewed to help to keep people safe. There was evidence of obtaining support and advice as required from other professionals.

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

People’s relatives told us there was enough staff who arrived on time and did not rush people. They felt the staff understood the person’s needs and were cared for by the same regular staff. One relative told us they were confident about the service provided by Fawaz and found it helpful staff spoke the person’s primary language, so they understood each other.

Staff undertook a range of relevant training to help care safely for people. They felt supported and were confident they could ask for help if needed.

The provider followed safe recruitment practices to help ensure only suitable staff were employed to care for people using the service. These included checks on their experience, skills, and eligibility to work in the United Kingdom. After being recruited, staff undertook an induction and training, so they had the required knowledge to care for people. Staff undertook annual refresher courses or when a need was identified. Records indicated supervisions were undertaken and staff confirmed they received support from the registered manager.

A relative confirmed staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and an apron when they provided support with personal care.

Staff had undertaken training about infection prevention and control. They had enough PPE.

There were suitable procedures in place to help prevent and control infection. The registered manager confirmed that care workers were provided with PPE and there were processes to ensure they could obtain additional supplies when required. The registered manager also carried out spot checks to help ensure staff followed best practice.

People with self administered or relatives administered medicines. At the time of the inspection staff were not administering medicines.

Staff had undertaken training about the safe handling of medicines.

Care records included information about people's medicines and any risks associated with these. The provider had a medicines policy, records and an audit template ready for when they did need to administer medicines.