Sahara House

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. 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.

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.

At our last inspection, we found that the provider's learning culture processes were not always effective and robust enough to learn from previous incidents. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made.

The registered manager explained that they have dedicated considerable effort to fostering a forward-thinking and constructive safety culture within the service. They have successfully established an atmosphere of transparency and honesty, where staff members were encouraged to be alert to safety-related concerns. The registered manager told us, “Staff are actively involved in reporting any safety incidents, ensuring ongoing engagement and continuous improvement.”

The provider had clearly demonstrated both a thorough understanding of safety standards and a strong commitment to maintaining and continually improving these standards. This dedication was particularly evident in the robust approach taken to managing accidents and incidents. By regularly reviewing their systems for recording and logging such events, the provider ensured that every occurrence was swiftly documented in strict accordance with the organisation’s established policies and procedures and lessons were learnt as part of this review. This systematic approach not only facilitated prompt action and accurate reporting but also supported a culture of learning from incidents. As a result, the provider can implement effective measures that contribute to creating a safer environment for people who used the service.

We saw evidence that the management team carried out regular spot checks to verify that staff were putting into practice the knowledge gained during training sessions. For example, the audits included management of people’s medicine, the environment and people's care planning and risk assessment. This proactive approach played a key role in safeguarding individuals, while also supporting the ongoing improvement and development of staff skills.

Staff members we spoke to confirmed that the management team regularly met with them to discuss lessons learned and to assess their knowledge and understanding of the training they had received. One staff said, “When we have completed training, we are asked to give feedback on the training and what we have learnt.” Another staff member also told us, “In supervisions and staff meetings the manager feeds back the learning from incidents and accidents that had taken place, this helps to prevent any reoccurrence.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners 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.

At our last inspection, we found that the provider's medicines systems and processes were not always effective and robust to identify shortfalls. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made.

The service implemented robust handover processes and ensured that all necessary information was shared promptly and accurately. This approach minimised the risk of information loss or miscommunication, supported seamless transitions, and maintained the quality and safety of care as individuals moved through different stages or providers within the healthcare system.

One relative told us that they were fully involved with the providers preadmission process. The relative told us, “I was fully involved with the assessment and were asked different questions about my [person], which included when they were a child and their likes and dislikes. The home also shared a copy of the support plan and risk assessments that staff would be following.”

We saw that pre-admissions were completed, which confirmed that the service was equipped to be able to deliver the right care and support to the person. This assessment helped to ascertain the suitability of the service, prioritising the safety and well-being of those seeking support. The assessments contained information about the person’s medical history, personal preferences, cultural background, support needs and any particular risks or vulnerabilities. By evaluating these factors, the service can determine whether it had the necessary resources, expertise, and environment to provide appropriate and effective care.

The registered manager told us that they involved people who were being assessed, their family members and relevant professionals to build a clear profile of their requirements. This collaborative approach allowed for the identification of any adjustments or specialised support that may be required, such as mobility aids, communication tools, or tailored dietary plans.

Staff reported feeling encouraged to actively engage in the pre-admission process. The registered manager facilitated open communication by discussing the person’s needs with the entire staff team and ensured transparency by sharing both the care plan and relevant risk assessments. This collaborative approach supported staff understanding and preparedness in delivering effective care tailored to people’s requirements.

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 told us that they prioritised safeguarding while promoting wellbeing, and they promptly communicated any concerns to the management team to help safeguard people who used the service. We also saw that the provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately to outside agencies such as the local authorities, CQC and relatives.

Relatives reported that safeguarding information was easy to obtain for both people and their families. They also expressed confidence that their loved ones were well protected and safe in the care of the staff. One relative said, “I looked at other homes before my [person moved in] and this was the best by far. Staff know what they are doing and how to keep [people] safe”.

The registered manager emphasised that safeguarding both people and staff was their foremost responsibility. They demonstrated confidence in the staff’s ability to identify and act upon safeguarding concerns, noting that staff were regularly tested on their understanding of the appropriate procedures for escalating issues to both external authorities and internal safeguarding leads.

Staff reported that they underwent thorough safeguarding training upon commencing their roles and continue to participate in ongoing professional development sessions. One staff said, “The training covers recognising signs of abuse, gaining an understanding of the different types of abuse, and learning the correct steps to take if any safeguarding issues arise”

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

The provider adopted a positive approach to risk management, engaging directly with people to gain a thorough understanding of their circumstances, preferences and concerns. By involving people in discussions about potential risks, staff were able to identify not only the challenges but also the strengths and resources available to each person.

Staff members considered the full spectrum of risks such as physical, emotional, social, and environmental rather than focusing solely on clinical or immediate safety concerns. This comprehensive perspective ensured that risk assessments were balanced and proportionate, enabling individuals to take positive risks that could improve their quality of life, while minimising unnecessary restrictions. For example, risk assessments covered, people’s mobility, health related risks and using the local community.

Relatives confirmed that they were actively involved to participate in discussions about the risk assessments. Their input was sought to ensure that all relevant information was considered, such as established routines, likes and dislikes, and any strategies that had previously helped to manage risks effectively.

Assessments conducted by the service on risks were person-centred, and were tailored to the situation, needs and preferences of each person. This approach recognised that risks may vary significantly from person to person. By focusing assessments on people, the service could identify specific risks and develop strategies that addressed those risks in a way that respected the person’s autonomy and dignity.

Staff members confirmed that they were actively involvement in the risk assessment process. One staff member stated, “The manager always asks us for our views and input when risk assessment is being completed or reviewed.”

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

Relatives reported to us that they felt staff provided support in a safe and reassuring manner. This feedback highlighted the positive impact of the staff's approach, adopting a sense of security and trust among family members. A relative told us, “I find that the home is very homely and well maintained. The staff act very quickly to arrange for things to be repaired.”

We observed that the living environment had been adapted to accommodate the needs of the people residing at the home. During our visit, ongoing works were being carried out to refurbish the bathrooms, and the registered manager advised us that there were plans in place to redecorate the service.

The service facilitated assessments by the Occupational Health team, who organised for assistive technology to be implemented in order to help reduce risks to individuals. For example, we observed that one person used an epilepsy monitor, which alerted staff if the person was to experience a seizure.

The service was provided by an external contractor, who was responsible for carrying out annual safety checks within the premises. This included gas testing and servicing, electrical checks, and fire safety testing.

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.

The provider implemented a training programme for all staff, covering key areas designed to enhance the quality of support offered to people and maintain robust health and safety standards. The training included safeguarding adults, infection control, risk assessment procedures, and approaches to supporting mental health and supporting people with a learning disability and autism. This comprehensive approach ensured staff were well-equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to deliver effective, safe, and compassionate care.

The provider had systems in place for conducting pre-employment checks prior to staff taking up their roles. These checks were designed to assess the suitability and trustworthiness of potential employees, with a particular emphasis on protecting vulnerable individuals from harm. For example, staff files were maintained and included application forms, copies of identification documents, references from previous employers, health checks, and criminal records checks.

Staff told us that they received a full induction programme upon starting at the service. We saw evidence of completed induction forms was available, demonstrating a consistent approach. The induction covered several vital areas, including initial training, familiarisation with the service’s policies and procedures, and opportunities for staff to get to know people they would be supporting. This process helped new employees integrate smoothly into the service and ensured they were adequately prepared for their roles.

In addition to their formal training, staff also received regular supervisions and ongoing support. These sessions provided opportunities for staff members to reflect on their practice, discuss any challenges they were facing, and receive guidance and feedback from their supervisors.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

At our last inspection, we found that the provider's systems and processes related to infection control were not always effective and robust to identify shortfalls. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made.

All staff members at the service participated in training focused on infection prevention and control. The training programme covered a range of essential topics, including the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), hand hygiene protocols, safe cleaning practices, and the importance of environmental cleanliness. Regular refresher sessions ensured that staff remained up to date with current guidelines and best practice.

One staff told us, “We have access to all PPE such as, gloves, and aprons. We can also ask the manager to add more if we need to.”

The registered manager told us that they conducted infection control audits to observe and assess staff performance, reinforcing that correct infection prevention and control measures were consistently followed during day-to-day routines. We also saw evidence of the audits taking place.

It was observed that the service was maintained in a clean and tidy condition and cleaning rotas were in place for staff to follow.

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.

At our last inspection, we found that the provider's medicines systems and processes were not always effective and robust to identify shortfalls. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made.

Staff received appropriate training and had their competency evaluated before being allowed to administer medicines to people. This approach helped to ensure that medicines was given safely and effectively, in line with best practice and regulatory standards.

Relatives told us that their loved ones received their medicines as prescribed. A relative said, “I do not have any concern on how my [person] is supported by staff to take their [medicines] as I’m fully involved with all reviews that take place.” This feedback confirmed that the process for administering medicines was followed appropriately, ensuring individuals received the correct medicines in accordance with their prescriptions.

The registered manager showed us their system, which included audits that had been completed on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis, which helped identify any potential concerns and helped address them in a timely manner. The audit had detailed information of any actions that was required.

During our visit, we reviewed people’s Medication Administration Records (MAR). The records demonstrated that staff had consistently and accurately completed all entries. Each medicine administered was appropriately documented, reflecting a good standard of record-keeping.

It was noted that the provider maintained an up-to-date medicines policy, offering staff clear and current guidance whenever needed. This policy promoted the safe and consistent management of medicines throughout the service.

The staff indicated their comprehension of the STOMP initiative, which stands for Stopping Over-Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or Both. The registered manager further verified that this topic forms an integral part of the staff training programme.