Thinkempathy Limited

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 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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People and relatives said staff responded quickly to incidents and recognised when people were struggling or needed extra support. Relatives told us they were kept updated by staff when incidents occurred.

The registered manager fostered a positive learning culture. Staff were encouraged to reflect on practice and share learning. Incidents were reviewed promptly to identify immediate actions and reduce the risk of recurrence. The registered manager also completed thematic reviews of incidents, to identify trends and improve support. Relatives and professionals were involved in developing support strategies when appropriate. This helped to ensure there was a shared understanding of how risks were managed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. People told us there was continuity of care, including when they moved between different services.

Leaders demonstrated clear knowledge of effective transition planning and showed how people were supported to understand their tenancy rights, including through adapted agreements based on individual communication needs. This helped people make informed choices about where they lived.

Some relatives said people needed time to adjust to their new living and care arrangements due to complex needs or circumstances. They told us staff worked hard to get to know people and support them through these challenges. Comments included, “There were teething problems, but (my relative) is now more emotionally stable (with support from staff).”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately with professionals.

People and relatives said they felt safe and knew how to raise concerns. There were appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures in place. The registered manager ensured safeguarding alerts were raised promptly, and the provider worked with partners to reduce ongoing risks.

Staff were trained in safeguarding, recognised signs of abuse and knew how to respond. They balanced people’s rights to make unwise decisions with their duty to keep them safe. Leaders understood the legal frameworks around any required restrictions being in people’s best interests and promoted least restrictive practice. We saw evidence that applications for Community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations had been submitted when required. Staff knew when restrictions were necessary and involved people, relatives and professionals in decisions about care. They also ensured the impact of restrictions on others was minimised in shared living spaces.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and relatives said staff competently supported them to manage everyday risks, including those related to health needs, emotional and moving and handling. For example, there were care plans and risk assessments around the monitoring and management of epilepsy. This helped to reduce risks related to seizures for people.

Staff and leaders worked with people to balance safety with choice. They supported people in informed decision making and agreed clear roles within each risk management plan. Care plans set out clear actions to reduce risk, and staff confidently described deescalation strategies in line with positive behaviour support (PBS) and least restrictive practice. Positive behaviour support focuses on understanding the causes of distress, teaching new skills, and creating supportive environments, rather than simply trying to reduce behaviours. This helped keep people safe both in their homes and when they accessed the community.

Business continuity plans outlined how the service would respond to emergencies. The provider had arranged accessible emergency accommodation with a local hotel, ensuring effective contingency plans were in place should people need to evacuate their home.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider assessed people’s home environments, including risks related to falls, home safety and care equipment. People told us they had the right equipment and that staff used it safely. The provider checked equipment to ensure it worked properly and gave staff clear guidance on its safe use.

Staff supported people to maintain a safe home environment. They helped people report housing issues to landlords and completed regular health and safety checks. People had individual emergency plans, including personalised evacuation guidance, which set out the support they would need to leave their home safely in an emergency.

People and relatives said permanent staff were well trained, professional and dedicated. Some relatives felt agency staff did not always meet the same standard and said the service would benefit from more permanent staff. The provider recognised this and was working to increase permanent staffing numbers.

Agency staff received training and induction equivalent to permanent staff. The provider had agreements with the agency to promote continuity, and agency staff initially worked alongside experienced staff. The registered manager observed their practice to ensure they worked safely and effectively.

Staff received role specific training, including learning disabilities, autism and positive behaviour support. Leaders promoted ongoing development through induction, supervision, spot checks and competency assessments. Staff said they felt supported, and some were completing additional health and social care qualifications.

The provider’s HR team oversaw staff recruitment. We found 1 file missed required information, including a full work history and references; other files were complete. The registered manager acknowledged this and was introducing a recruitment checklist to ensure all files met regulatory requirements. This work was underway at the time of inspection.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

People and relatives told us staff followed good infection prevention and control practices. Staff told us they received training in infection control, and they had a good understanding of promoting good hygiene and reducing risks around infections spreading. There were infection prevention and control policies and procedures in place. These had been developed in line with best practice, which helped to ensure staff were following guidance relevant to their role.

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

People and relatives told us staff supported them to take their medicines as prescribed. Care plans detailed the level of support each person required. Where possible, staff promoted independence and encouraged people to manage their medicines themselves. Staff helped people build confidence and skills to ensure medicines were taken safely. We observed staff following safe practice when supporting people to administer their medicines.

The provider operated effective systems to monitor medicines administration and keep care plans up to date. Staff worked with people and external professionals to prevent over‑medication, with everyone supported to attend annual medicines reviews with their GP. Staff minimised the use of medicines to manage anxiety or emotions. Instead, used proactive and positive approaches to reduce the need for these medicines to be administered.

The registered manager investigated all medicines‑related incidents and reviewed systems to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. They reported concerns to relevant professionals and supported people to resolve issues with supply, storage, or administration. Learning from incidents was shared with staff to promote safe and consistent practice.