Sursum Limited Bramley 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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

At the last inspection we identified shortfalls in the safeguarding processes that had been followed. At this inspection we found this had improved. Concerns were shared promptly with the local authority safeguarding team and the Care Quality Commission. People told us they felt safe in the service. Staff had received training and demonstrated a good understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities. Staff told us they were confident the management team would act on any concerns they raised. They said safeguarding was discussed regularly in staff meetings and in supervision sessions. Safeguarding posters were displayed in staff areas of the service, setting out the procedures to follow if they had concerns. Posters contained contact details for organisations staff could report concerns to if they did not feel they had been listened to.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for 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.

At the last inspection we identified shortfalls in action to rectify defects with safety equipment in the service. At this inspection we found this had improved. Safety equipment was regularly checked, and repairs and replacement of faulty equipment was completed. The registered manager had detailed action plans of all scheduled work and worked with contractors to ensure work was completed in a timely way. The registered manager had worked with the fire service and external assessors to address shortfalls in the fire safety systems in the home. The provider had developed new systems to ensure the maintenance team regularly checked equipment in the home to ensure they were safe, such as fire alarms, water systems and lifting equipment. People told us the service was well maintained.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

At the last inspection we identified shortfalls in the way medicines were recorded. At this inspection we found this had improved. For example, staff now kept accurate records of the medicines people had been supported to take. The balance of medicines now held in the service matched the records. Where people were prescribed medicines to be taken ‘as required’, there were now clear plans setting out when staff should support them with this.

People told us staff provided good support for them with their medicines. Staff received training in the safe management of medicines and a manager observed their practice to ensure they were doing this safely.