Sahara Gardens

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 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. Managers listened to concerns about safety and investigated where necessary. The manager ensured there was transparency when things went wrong. For example, the staff team had regular meetings where they shared their experiences with one another to identify where support could improve. The manager told us, “As well as things that might go wrong, we talk about people and share ideas to make sure staff are consistent.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. For example, staff ensured that important information about people’s health care needs were shared with relevant health professionals which meant people received the right treatment at the right time.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff worked to protect people, ensuring they lived their lives free of any form of abuse or discrimination. Staff completed training which equipped them with understanding and identifying the types of abuse and discrimination people might face and what actions they would take to protect people.

The provider openly shared concerns with families and professional bodies involved in people’s care. For example, the provider had regular phone calls with family members and staff provided written reports for family members detailing people’s progress. People and their families told us they knew that they could approach the managers if they had any concerns about safety and felt they would be listened to.

Staff were knowledgeable and understood what they needed to do if they were concerned about a person’s safety. A staff member told us, “I would raise a safeguarding or a whistleblowing if need be and then report it to the manager. Our organisation has a whistleblowing policy which we all know about.”

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. For example 1 person was assessed to be safe enough to travel independently without the support of staff which gave them greater independence.

Risk assessments were well written and covered all aspects of each person’s care and support ensuring staff had the information to keep people safe. These included such things as the use of sharp knives to prepare food with, and the support required when going out into the wider community.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure any equipment needed supported people’s safe care. The service was free of hazards and well maintained. There was a maintenance person on site regularly throughout the day to deal with any repairs needed.

Routine safety checks were carried out by competently trained people on such things as fire systems and electrical appliances to ensure they were in working order when used which helped keep people 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 which met people’s individual needs.

The provider carried out checks on prospective staff to help ensure they were suitable to work in a care setting. These included employment references, the right to work in the UK and criminal records checks.

Staff received regular supervision and had access to a wide range of training courses which helped them do their jobs. One staff member told us they were a senior support worker and as part of their role had additional responsibilities. They said, “We have a checklist we follow to ensure other staff are doing their job. As well as doing the same job as them I supervise staff to ensure they get the support and direction they need.”

The providers training package for staff was comprehensive. It included a range of health and safety related courses. There were courses aimed at raising awareness about potential barriers to care people with learning disabilities and autistic people faced in society.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection and had measures in place to ensure risks were minimised. The home was clean and there were practices undertaken by staff working during the day and at night ensuring a high standard of cleanliness was maintained. For example, we saw cleaning rotas for tasks undertaken during the day and at night and the managers told us how people were involved in cleaning their own rooms. Staff had access to personal protective equipment to prevent risks of cross contamination. The provider made sure staff had access to training which helped them understand their roles and responsibilities in minimising the risks of infection and keeping people safe.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs. Medicines were stored and administered safely. The system to administer medicines used by the provider had been pre-packed by the dispensing pharmacist for each time it needed to be given making it clear for staff to do. The provider had a system which accurately checked medicine stocks which helped prevent errors. The provider monitored one person’s medicines in relation to its use in managing their anxiety. They had identified changes to a person where a particular medicine they had been taking for many years was no longer needed. This was a significant achievement for the person as well as staff supporting them, demonstrating how effective the support was without the over reliance on medicines. The provider understood and implemented the principles of STOMP (stopping the over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people) and ensured that people’s medicines were reviewed by prescribers in line with these principles.

We noted some people used an emollient cream manufactured using flammable liquids. Whilst we agreed the risks to people were extremely low; we asked the provider to ensure this was incorporated into risk assessments relating to fire which the provider did immediately.