Giles Shirley Hall

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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had effective systems in place to record accidents and incidents, including analysis of trends and underlying causes. The manager clearly documented lessons learned, and action taken following incidents appropriately involved people’s families and relevant professionals where required. Staff told us lessons learned and areas for improvement were regularly shared and discussed with the whole staff team.

When reoccurrence of incidents increased for people, the provider responded promptly by escalating concerns and involving other professionals. This ensured collaborative working to support people and reduce further risks.

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.

The provider worked closely with health and social care professionals, including social workers and GPs, to support people to maintain good health and wellbeing. Feedback from professionals was positive. One professional commented, “The manager and the team are engaged, responsive, and open to all guidance provided.”

The service worked collaboratively with the local GP practice to support staff to carry out basic health observations. This helped to reduce distress for people and provided a clearer clinical picture, enabling professionals to determine the most appropriate type of health review required.

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 received safeguarding training and were able to recognise signs of abuse, and understand the action required to keep people safe. People and their families told us they felt safe with the care and support provided.

The provider worked closely with local authority safeguarding teams to protect people. The registered manager monitored and audited the use of any restrictive practices within the home to ensure they were proportionate and used 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.

Staff, including managers, knew people well and were able to clearly describe people’s needs, as well as how best to support them and keep them safe.

Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and explained the risks people faced, and the actions staff needed to take to manage them. Where appropriate, people had care plans in place to support periods of emotional distress. Incident records demonstrated that, when followed, these plans were effective in de-escalating situations and keeping people safe.

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

Where required, the provider made appropriate environmental adjustments to meet people’s needs and maintain their safety. Although some areas of the home required redecoration or refurbishment, the provider had plans in place to address this in the near future.

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 recruited staff safely, and new staff completed a comprehensive induction before working independently. There were enough staff on duty, and they received appropriate training to support people effectively, including training to support people with a learning disability and autistic people. Staff gave positive feedback about the training they received. One staff member told us, “I have had lots of support and training. Can’t fault the training, it has been excellent.”

The provider adjusted rotas where required to ensure people were supported to access the community and take part in activities of their choice.

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.

The home was generally clean and tidy, and staff supported people to keep their bedrooms and communal areas clean. Staff completed and recorded regular checks, including daily temperature checks of fridges and freezers, to monitor food safety.

Feedback from family members was positive. Comments included, “The home is always kept clean and tidy,” and “His room is nice and clean, no clutter." Staff told us there was always plenty of PPE available.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. For example, we found eye drops for some people had expired, and it was unclear whether these were still being administered. The registered manager took immediate action to address this issue and communicated the required actions clearly to all staff.

We found appropriate guidance was in place for prescribed medicines, including guidance from the GP relating to homely remedies.

Staff who administered medicines had completed the required training and competency assessments to ensure medicines were administered safely.

Managers and other professionals monitored the use of ‘as required’ medicines to ensure people were not at risk of being over medicated.