Operations Office

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 the same.

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.

A safeguarding policy was in place that detailed the types of abuse and how to escalate concerns if staff suspected or saw abuse to ensure people were protected. A relative told us, “They look after [person] really well.”

Staff knew about safeguarding processes and had received training in this area. Staff were able to tell us the importance of reporting any concerns to the management team. Staff also felt they could be open to the management team if they had any concerns.

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

Risk assessments were in place to ensure people received safe care. Risks had been identified and there were risk assessments to ensure people were safe when being supported such as on people’s health conditions, falls management and financial exploitation. A missing person profile was in place that included people’s descriptions and photo to ensure people can be found if they were missing.

Risk assessments were reviewed and any changes were reflected with updated risk assessments.

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.

At our last inspection, we found staff had not received up to date training. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made.

Staff had completed key training such as on safeguarding, eating and drinking and first aid. Specialist training was also completed such as on learning disabilities, autism, mental health and stroke management. Systems were in place that showed the training staff had completed and the dates the training were completed to ensure oversight. A relative told us, “Yes, the care team know [person] needs.”

Regular supervisions and appraisals had been carried out to ensure staff were supported.Staff were supported in their role. The registered manager told us that staff were supported through training, supervisions and regular contact to ensure staff can receive support.

Staff confirmed they received regular supervisions and support from the registered manager. A staff member told us, “Very good, if there is any concerns we report it and [registered manager] is always there to find a solution.”

There was enough staff to support people safely. Relatives we spoke with had no concerns about staffing level. A relative told us, “Yes, [person] has carers all the time and there is always someone there to help when [person] needs help.”

There were appropriate numbers of staff on duty to support people safely at the supported living sites. Rotas confirmed there were enough staff to support people safely. Records showed relevant pre-employment checks, such as criminal records checks, right to work in the UK, references and proof of the person’s identity had been carried out to ensure staff were of good character.

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.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Medicines were managed safely. Medicines Administration Records (MARs) showed that medicines had been administered as prescribed. Medicines audits were carried out to ensure people received their medicines safely. Staff had also been trained in medicines management and had competency assessments to ensure they were competent to manage medicines. We observed medicines were securely stored at the supported living site. A relative told us, “The staff are always there and on hand to give support, they give [person] medication when needed.”

Medicines care plans were in place. Details about what medicines people were prescribed were within the care records. MARs contained information about whether people had any allergies.

Staff told us they were confident in managing medicines. The registered manager was able to demonstrate the process of ensuring medicines were managed safely such as training being delivered to staff, competency assessments being carried out and regular checks made on medicines administration and records.