Access for Living

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At thsi inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

This service scored 62 (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.

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

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider did not always control potential risks in the care environment. People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place, and these detail the support a person would need to leave the service in the case of an emergency. The service also had fire risk assessments in place which included evacuation plans for the service in place. However, we saw PEEPs for 2 people which stated they required the assistance of 2 staff members to be safely evacuated due to their mobility support needs requiring them to use equipment to aid movement. However, the PEEPs then went on to say it would not be safe for these people to be evacuated from the building in this manner. The fire risk assessment had recommended a full evacuation of all people using the service, however PEEPs advised in the case of an emergency, staff were to ensure people’s individual doors were shut, and to notify the emergency service of their location upon arrivals. This went against the recommendation of the fire risk assessment and put people at the risk of avoidable harm.

We raised these concerns with the management team. Additional safety measures were quickly put into place for the 2 people who would require assistance to be evacuated due to their mobility support needs. These measures included installing evacuation mats, and a misting system into their bedrooms.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified staff on duty to support people to keep them from the risk of avoidable harm. Although the provider had enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff employed, we found there was not enough staff on duty within the service during the night to keep people safe from avoidable harm in the event of a requirement for evacuation. The provider told us they were not funded to have more than 1 member of staff on duty throughout the night. However, the onus is on the provider to ensure sufficient staff are available to be deployed to cover both the emergency and routine work of the service, and in doing so, reducing the risk of avoidable harm to people.

The provider had since deployed 2 additional staff members to be on duty throughout the night in 2 homes where people are unable to self-evacuate due to mobility limitations. This is a temporary arrangement until all the additional safety measures have been fully implemented.

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.