My Way Support CIC

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 assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had systems to review and investigate accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns. Staff managed accidents and incidents safely; first aid support was provided where needed, medical support and advice was sought, and management were kept updated. Where incidents and accidents occurred, thorough investigations were undertaken, learning identified and action taken to reduce the risk of similar events happening again. For example, following medication errors there were reflective supervisions with the staff involved to look at what had happened, and what additional support was needed to address factors which had contributed to the errors. This meant staff practice continually improved. There were infrequent incidents at the service, however where they did occur, these were discussed collectively as a team at meetings. This enabled learning to be identified and proposed changes to staff practice was discussed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Before support commenced, the service completed thorough assessments of each person’s needs, using local authority assessments to inform personalised care plans and risk assessments. These assessments took a holistic approach, drawing on information from other health and social care professionals, relevant representatives, and the person themselves.

Care plans were detailed and provided clear guidance to staff on how best to support the person.These care plans also highlighted involvement from external health professionals, including Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) teams, so staff could deliver well‑coordinated and informed care.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being

safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff 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 provider shared concerns quickly and

appropriately.

The provider had a safeguarding policy which was relevant and contained up to date information to guide staff. The registered manager identified and reported safeguarding incidents appropriately and worked alongside relevant agencies to develop safety measures for people as needed.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were trusted to keep them safe. The provider ensured people had access to easy‑read safeguarding documents to help them understand what abuse might look like, who they should report concerns to, and how to raise these concerns. These accessible resources supported people to recognise risks, feel confident in speaking up, and stay informed about how to protect themselves. Staff used the materials alongside day‑to‑day conversations to reinforce people’s understanding and promote a culture where safety and openness were prioritised.

Staff had received training in how to safeguard people. Staff we spoke with were confident to report concerns and satisfied action would be taken to investigate them. Staff told us, they would raise concerns immediately if they witnessed poor practice. One staff member said they would, “Report it straight to the manager and ensure action was taken.”

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and ensured any decisions made for individuals who lacked capacity, were consistently made in the person’s best interest. Staff completed training and could clearly explain how the principles of the MCA applied in their daily practice. Staff described how they supported people in the least restrictive way possible, encouraging them to make informed choices about their care and daily routines.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them

People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. Care plans provided guidance for staff to ensure people received safe and responsive care and support. Risks were assessed and mitigated to keep people safe. Risk assessments were person-centred and regularly reviewed. For example, the risks to deterioration in people’s mental health and what signs to look for were significantly detailed and documented. This enabled staff to support people to keep themselves safe and well. The registered manager had good oversight of these records and conducted audits and quality assurance checks to ensure staff practice remained safe. Care plans provided clear, practical guidance for staff to support people if they became upset or anxious.

Positive risk-taking was actively encouraged, reflecting a culture which prioritised choice and independence. People were encouraged and supported to participate in activities such as sailing and woodwork. This inclusive approach promoted independence and autonomy while ensuring safety. Relatives told us, “I don’t have anything negative to say, people are supported and enabled to have a fulfilled life,” and “The staff always encourage [name] to have the life of a young adult”.

Staff received trainingregardinggood practice and current legislation. For instance, ensuring staff had completed the mandatory training requirement for learning disabilities and autism and providing best practice training in Positive Behavioural Support (PBS). PBS is a way of understanding the behaviour of an individual. It is based on an assessment of the social and physical environment in which the behaviour happens, includes the views of the person and everyone involved, and uses this understanding to develop supportwhichimproves the quality of life for the person and others who are involved with them.

During our observations, staff demonstrated a compassionate and person‑centred approach. They used distraction, reassurance, and other techniques outlined in care plans to help people manage their anxiety effectively and with dignity.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The environment was safe, well maintained and equipped to meet people’s individual needs. Regular environmental risk assessments were completed, with any required actions recorded, monitored and reviewed to ensure the premises remained suitable and free from hazards.

Plans had been developed detailing how staff should respond to emergencies, and equipment was routinely monitored and serviced, supported by regular audits completed by staff and the registered manager. Fire safety checks and comprehensive audits helped ensure people and staff understood how to respond in the event of a fire, and each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) to support their safe exit if needed.

The provider 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.

Recruitment systems ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

The provider hadobtained Disclosureand Barring (DBS) checksbefore new staff started employment.Staff were recruited safely and told us they were given time through shadow shifts, to be able to get to know people’s needs before they started working.

Staff completed an induction when they first started and received regular training updates to ensure they had the skills to meet people needs. Staff received regular supervision and competency checks were completed to ensure staff continued to have the appropriate knowledge to support people. Staff told us there was enough staff to carry out their roles. We observed staff responding to people in a timely manner. Relatives told us there were enough staff to support people’s needs, one relative said,“My [name] is the most content [name] has ever been, and [name] anxieties are now short-lived”. Professionals told us, “Staff now demonstrate appropriate skills and training to meet the complexities of people’s needs”.

The provider had systems to monitor staffing levels and ensure the supported living properties were adequately staffed and people received their care.

People we spoke with told us, “I know the staff well and they know me. They know what I need help with”, and “I can talk to staff about my worries, they help me when I need it”.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had systems and processes to assess and manage the risk of infection. There were cleaning programmes for each person’s home which people joined in according to their abilities.

The provider had ensured easy‑read materials and picture cards were available to help people understand the importance of washing their hands. These visual prompts supported people who benefited from simplified information, enabling people to follow hygiene routines more confidently and independently. Staff used the resources consistently, reinforcing good infection‑prevention practices and promoting people’s overall wellbeing.

There was sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) at each person’s home to provide safe care. This included gloves and aprons. Staff had received infection prevention and control training and understood what to do to mitigate infection risks. Weobservedstaff using PPE appropriately throughout people’s homes.People commented, “My home is clean and tidy”, and “It’s very clean and tidy here”.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff were trained to administer medicines. Staff had to undertake training before they could administer medicines and received competency checks to ensure they administered medicines safely. One staff member told us, “I have had training [in administering medicines] and received a competency check.”

Audit processes were in place for medicine records. Staff and the management team audited people’s Medication Administration Records on a regular basis and took follow up action with the staff involved whereconcerns wereidentified.Processes were in place to monitor the use of ‘when required’ medicines, ensuring they were used sparingly and only when clinically appropriate.

One person told us, “I need to take medicines and staff help me with this, if I forget they remind me” and another person told us, “The staff remind me what the tablet is for”.

One relative told us, “[Name] medicines are monitored by the staff”. The provider worked in line with STOMP, which is national best practice guidance on stopping the over-medication of people with a learning disability and or autistic people. There were systems to make sure people’s distressed behaviour was not inappropriately controlled by medicines. The team worked with others to protect people from the risk of over medication. The team’s approach to medicines reflected current best practice and professional guidance. People’s medicines were administered in line with the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 and staff were trained to support people and meet their needs without overuse of medicines. Staff were able to speak up if they had a concern that a person was being controlled by excessive or inappropriate medicines.