Brightwater

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

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 72 (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 positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. People, staff and relatives told us they were encouraged and supported to raise concerns and were confident they would be acted on. Staff meetings always included an area of learning, for example quizzes on safeguarding and infection control, and sharing learning following incidents.

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 to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve this. Information on how to raise concerns was clearly displayed around the home for people, staff and visitors. Staff we spoke with understood their safeguarding responsibilities and gave examples of concerns they would report. Staff told us they were confident the registered manager would deal with concerns appropriately, but also knew which other organisations, such as the local safeguarding authority to contact if concerns were not acted on. We saw safeguarding was discussed with people at weekly resident meetings, and a person told us, “We go through it [how to raise concerns] and also how to contact CQC and Adult Service”.

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 detect and control potential risks in the care environment.There were some areas of the environment that needed maintenance, for example, the kitchen worktops and a broken cupboard door. Actions from environmental risk assessments, such as water safety, were not always completed in a timely manner to ensure risk was mitigated. We raised this with the registered manager who told us this would be addressed. We saw evidence of other health and safety checks relating to the premises, such as electrical testing and gas safety.

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.

Recruitment processes were robust and carried out in line with legal requirements. Staff received training and regular competency checks in areas relevant to their roles. For example, safeguarding, supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people, fire safety and first aid. Staffing levels were adjusted based on people’s needs, preferences and activities they wanted to do. People, relatives and staff all shared positive feedback about staffing levels. A ‘peripatetic’ staff team had been developed to work flexibly across 3 of the provider’s services in the local area. This had reduced the use of agency staff and improved continuity in people’s support.

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.