Goddard Avenue (145)

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

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 did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Some areas of the building were in need of repair, for example there was some chipped paintwork and areas of the home looked dated. Additionally, there were some fire safety concerns. For example, the provider had completed their own risk assessment of the fire safety of the premises, however this was not sufficient as it was not completed by a trained fire safety professional. We also identified some minor gaps in fire doors. We contacted the fire service about our concerns who visited the service and advised leaders. There were also some areas of the building which did not promote accessibility, including one person’s bedroom and one kitchen area. We raised this with leaders for them to address. The service responded immediately to the feedback provided during the inspection and took prompt action to address the areas identified. For example, chipped paintwork was repaired, stairs were painted immediately, and visibility strips were added to external steps to improve safety and accessibility. The service had already identified that the environment may not meet one person’s needs and had begun escalating this prior to and during the inspection.

However, health and safety checks took place. All required health and safety certificates were in place, such as gas safety and electrical wiring safety. Staff completed regular fire safety checks and were aware of the procedures.

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.

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. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.