Prosper Care

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 69 (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 service investigated when accidents or incidents occurred and would amend risk assessments and care plans accordingly. The registered manager was an active member of the staff team and made sure all staff were informed of any learning from accidents or incidents. Staff told us they were aware of how to report accidents and incidents to the registered manager who investigated and shared learning. We saw from team meeting minutes information was shared, and staff were asked for feedback.

People using the service told us they would inform the registered manager of incidents that occurred when staff were not present and staff would then be made aware.

The provider worked with people and health and social care professionals 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.

The registered manager told us, and we reviewed records that showed, the service did preadmission assessments prior to people being supported by the service. This ensured the service could meet the needs of the person and staff had all the information needed to meet the person’s care needs. The registered manager and people confirmed new admissions were discussed with existing people living at the service. This helped to ensure people would be compatible when living together. The service used hospital passports if people were needed to be cared for in hospital or other health care settings, to ensure their individual needs and risks were understood.

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 had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities relating to keeping people safe and reporting incidents. The service had not had any safeguarding concerns but had documentation ready in order to learn from incidents should they happen.

The service was not supporting anyone who was deprived of their liberty under a community DoLS but were aware of the legislation and what to do should they support people under a DoLS in the future.

People at the service told us they felt safe. Staff were not present at the service 24 hours a day. However, people told us they felt safe when staff were not present, and they knew what to do and who to contact if they were to feel unsafe. The registered manager was on call, and people knew they could contact them if needed.

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

The registered manager told us, and care records confirmed, people were supported to review their risk assessments with staff. As staff were not present at the service 24 hours a day, people were supported by the use of risk assessments to understand their care needs and how to manage these. Additionally, people at the service were supported to plan independent travel to see family who did not live locally. Staff supported people to understand what to expect during such journeys to ensure they were prepared, which helped to reduce anxiety. People told us they knew how to manage their care needs and what they would do if they needed additional support outside of staff support hours. This included contacting the registered manager and, if needed, emergency services.

Although people were supported to manage risks relating to their health and social care. Not all specific health needs were well documented in people’s care records. This risk was mitigated by staff knowing people well. However, the registered manager recognised they needed to make improvements and started to do so, to ensure if agency staff or new staff were to support people, they would have the guidance to be able to do so safely.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure the environment supported the delivery of safe care.

There were some areas of the environment where the provider had not recognised potential risks to people. This included risk of falls due to an uneven surface in the rear garden that was frequently accessed by a person who smoked, and bathroom areas in need of maintenance. The registered manager assured us they would look to rectify environmental risks at the service. Other environmental risks, such as ensuring doors and windows were securely locked before staff left the service, were effectively monitored by staff during daily, weekly and monthly checks and audits.

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.

People at the service had commissioned staffing hours which were always fulfilled. Staff worked flexibly to ensure the hours people received were at a time that suited them.

Staff had received training to support people at the service. We checked to see if staff had received training relating to the Oliver McGowen Code of Conduct. This legislation is to ensure staff are trained to a certain standard when working with people with a learning disability or autism. Staff at the service had received the first part of this training and had further training booked in the next month. Staff understood their responsibilities when working with people with a learning disability. Staff told us what they had learned during their training sessions and how they were putting their training into practice to support people. They did this by taking things at people’s own pace, being patient, respectful and encouraging independence.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

There were some areas of the service where the provider had not recognised there was an infection prevention control (IPC) risk. This included wallpaper peeling in a bathroom area, which may prevent effective cleaning being carried out. The[registered manager assured us they would act on IPC risks identified during the inspection. Staff wore protective clothing when supporting people with personal care. People told us they were supported by staff to keep their home clean.

This included peeling wallpaper in the bathroom, which posed a risk that effective cleaning could not be carried out.

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.

The service supported people to keep their medicines safe by storing medicines securely in line with people’s risk assessments. People supported at the service did not need support from the provider to administer their medicines.

People told us they were supported to remain independent by managing their medicines themselves where it was safe to do so.