The Paddocks

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

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

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

Staff knew how to recognise and report concerns. All staff told us they were confident action would be taken if they reported any issues.

We spent time observing people and staff interactions. People appeared comfortable and relaxed with staff who spoke with them in a kind and respectful way. A healthcare professional told us, “We have no concerns regarding the care of [people]. They appear well looked after with appropriate engagement.”

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.

Staff told us they were able to keep people as safe as possible, whilst also promoting their independence and encouraging decision making. A staff member described the types of risk assessment in place and the purpose for the individual person.

Staff knew the people they worked with well and supported them to manage risks. Risk assessments and care plans continued to be in place and were reviewed as people's needs changed. We raised with the provider that the risk assessments would benefit from a review to fully evidence how risks are mitigated alongside the promotion of independence.

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

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.

The service had processes in place to ensure that all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. The provider and his wife continued to live on site and told us they were still always available if needed to support people. As well as people's family members some external non-family members continued to be employed. Staff supported people with care needs and with their work on the land and gardens.

On the day of our site visit we observed the deployment of staff throughout the day was organised and that staff had time to spend with people on an individual basis.

People were cared for by staff who had been safely recruited and received training to make sure they had the appropriate skills to effectively support people. There was a stable staff team who knew people well. Throughout our visits we observed warm and affectionate interactions between people and staff. Records showed that all staff had completed a period of induction when they started working at the service which helped them to familiarise with the provider’s standards, polices and systems.

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

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