Freivan Support Services

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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

People received a safe service, were protected from abuse and neglect and had their human rights promoted. Risks to people were assessed and their safety was monitored and managed, with minimal restrictions on their freedom.

The provider was previously in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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.

People and relatives, we spoke with told us they had not been involved in any incidents and had no issues with the service. One relative said, “I have never needed to raise a complaint. I only ever have questions to do with my [loved one]. I can message them [staff], they respond to me and give me updates. Staff will check and look into any concern.”

Staff attended team meetings. These provided them with the opportunity for discussion about the service, care they provided to meet people’s needs and learning opportunities. Staff told us they felt supported by management and within their roles. One staff member commented, “There’s lots of appreciation which is nice and makes you want to do your job. They listen to us, and you can approach them at any time."

There had been no incidents or accidents at the service which was confirmed by the nominated individual. Nothing we saw indicated otherwise. The service had a policy for staff to follow should things go wrong, and we saw there was an incident form template to use should staff need to.

People felt safe with the staff who supported them. People’s relatives said they felt confident that the service would listen to them if they raised any concerns, or experienced a situation which made them feel their loved one was unsafe. A person’s representative told us their loved one was safe with the staff who visited and commented, “I have no concerns, staff make sure [person] feels safe.”

The management team and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of abuse and neglect and knew how to recognise signs that may indicate a person was at risk. Staff gave examples of things they looked out for to help make sure people they supported remained safe.

Safeguarding adults’ policies and procedures were in place. 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. Staff received safeguarding training and were able to tell us the actions they would take should they have concerns.

People felt safe with the staff who supported them. People’s relatives said they felt confident that the service would listen to them if they raised any concerns, or experienced a situation which made them feel their loved one was unsafe. A person’s representative told us their loved one was safe with the staff who visited and commented, “I have no concerns, staff make sure [person] feels safe.”

The management team and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of abuse and neglect and knew how to recognise signs that may indicate a person was at risk. Staff gave examples of things they looked out for to help make sure people they supported remained safe.

Safeguarding adults’ policies and procedures were in place. 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. Staff received safeguarding training and were able to tell us the actions they would take should they have concerns.

People and their representatives told us the staff helped them to recognise risks in their daily lives and take action to reduce these. People knew about their care plans and risk assessments and had been involved in compiling these as much as possible. A person’s representative told us that personal risk assessments had been completed and care staff followed them. They gave an example where 2 staff were needed to take the person to a park for a walk. Staff and the management team confirmed that risk assessments were completed with people who used the service and their representatives. This helped them to understand and manage the various risks they encountered in their daily lives. They told us people’s care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated as soon as any changes were needed. At our last inspection, risks to people were not always recorded and information provided to staff did not always mitigate risks. Risk assessments did not always record risks with regards to their health conditions and/or diagnoses nor provide instruction to staff which would mitigate risk. At this assessment, we saw improvements. Detailed risk assessments were in place for people with health conditions, including epilepsy and behaviour that challenged the service. Where necessary support was sought from healthcare professionals. There was guidance about people's medical conditions in people's care files should these deteriorate. The guidance included signs and symptoms for staff to be aware of, what to do and who to contact in case of an emergency. Sufficient improvement had been made at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 12. The management team completed regular audits and people’s care plans were updated as soon as there were any changes or new risks were identified.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the service environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People had access to equipment that enabled their independence and ensured their physical and emotional needs were met. Environment risk assessment were completed to ensure safety of the person.

Most people or their representatives, told us they were happy with the care staff allocated to their individual care packages and believed they were skilled and appropriately trained. Most people said that staff were reliable and always completed all the tasks they were required to do. A person’s representative told us, “They [Freivan] are supportive. They are always on time and knows what to do.”

Staff said they were happy with the training and support they received. Staff confirmed they completed an induction, shadow shifts and mandatory training, as well as person and health specific training. Staff gave examples of the training they had completed, which included learning disabilities and autism, epilepsy, challenging behaviour and a range of training to meet people’s specific health needs.

There were robust and safe recruitment practices to make sure that all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. These provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff received the support they needed to deliver safe care. This included supervision, appraisal and support to develop and improve services.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in infection prevention and control and demonstrated a good understating of the measures to manage and prevent the spread of infection. We saw that the provider had policies and procedures regarding the prevention and control of infection, and they kept staff up to date with relevant national guidance.

People told us they were happy with the way the service and care staff managed their medicines. A person’s representative told us that medicines were always administered properly and on time and there had never been any problems with carers supporting their relative with their medicines.

Staff and the management team told us that some people required support to manage and administer their medicines. They confirmed that regular monitoring and audits were completed by way of checking people’s medicines administration records (MAR), spot checks and feedback from people and their representatives. All the staff we spoke with confirmed they had completed training for medicines management and administration and were confident with this area of responsibility.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People’s medication was reviewed to ensure people's behaviour was not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines. The service understood and implemented the principles of STOMP (stopping over-medication of people with a learning disability, autism or both).

The systems used for auditing medicines were reliable and robust. We saw the service closely monitored people’s medicines and kept detailed records of all anomalies regarding these.