The Kent Autistic Trust - 11a Curlew Crescent

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. Staff we spoke with understood how and when to report incidents and accidents. Staff were confident that when an incident was reported, it would be looked at promptly and action taken by senior leaders to address any shortfalls.

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 registered manager ensured referrals were made to other healthcare professionals when needed. People had hospital passports in place. A hospital passport is a personalised documents detailing communication preferences, health needs and required care adjustments. This ensured that when people were supported to attend other healthcare settings their information could be shared efficiently to ensure they received continuity of care, and that their needs could be safely supported.

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. People and their relatives told us they felt safe living at the service. One person told us, ‘I get on with all the staff, I feel safe here. It is like living in a disco party.’ A relative also told us, ‘They do keep [person] safe and treat [person] well, [person] has nice meals because [person] likes their food.

The registered manager ensured that where applicable, appropriate authorisations were sought from the relevant authorities when restrictions placed upon people, this included DoLs. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is a legal framework in England and Wales under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 protecting adults in hospitals or care homes who lack capacity to consent to care arrangements that restrict their freedom.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People with assessed health needs in relation to constipation were not always safely supported. For example, one person had an ‘as required’ medicine to support them if they became constipated. The registered manager had implemented bowel recording charts, however staff had not consistently completed these charts. This meant that staff would not know when to administer the person’s ‘as required’ medicines as there was not an accurate record of when they last opened their bowels. The person was at risk of becoming constipated and not receiving their ‘as required’ medicines. Following this concern being raised to the registered manager, it was addressed with staff the importance of completing this record accurately.

However, the registered manager had ensured that other health risks were well managed. For example, people who lived with diabetes had care plans in place to give staff the information they needed to support people safely.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People were supported in an environment that was suited to their needs and preferences, where equipment and technology used was safely maintained. People’s relatives gave positive feedback about the environment, one relative told us ‘There’s a great big community room, a nice kitchen, [person] is very lucky to be in such a nice environment. I consider it safe. [Person] is used to stairs. [Person] is pretty safe in the environment, I’m sure.’

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. Records showed, and we observed there to be enough staff to support people safely and in line with their assessed needs. People and their relatives told us they felt there were enough staff to support people living life on their own terms and accessing the community. One person told us, ‘There are enough staff, they are nice. I went out on the bus with staff to McDonalds and got a drink.’ And a relative told us, ‘They have the right amount of staff, all services have turnover but I think the turnover is agreeable, people are safe and being introduced to new staff, there are senior staff to talk to if I wanted to.’

Safe recruitment processes were followed to ensure staff were suitable and safe to support people. Recruitment processes were carried out by a central team who ensured required checks were completed, such as a DBS. The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) isa non-departmental public body in the UK that helps employers make safer recruitment decisions by checking criminal records.

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. We observed the home to be clean and tidy. People and their relatives also told us they were happy with the cleanliness of the home. One relative told us, ‘It’s always been clean’. The registered manager told us cleaning of the home was done by the staff, but people were supported to be independent and encouraged to help with the cleaning of the home. People who were able, did their own laundry, with staff supporting them on which buttons to press on the washing machine.

The registered manager shared they have implemented the ‘Gloves off’ campaign. The ‘Gloves off’ campaign is a NHS initiative that aims to reduce unnecessary non-sterile glove use in healthcare to improve patient safety, hand hygiene, and environmental sustainability. It promotes using bare hands for care tasks like feeding, moving people, and measuring blood pressure, focusing on effective handwashing to cut infection risks and the risk of skin conditions such as dermatitis.

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. The registered manager followed national guidance, including STOMP to ensure people were not administered medicines unnecessarily. STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People with a learning disability, autism, or both) isan NHS England program aimed at reducing the inappropriate use of psychotropic medicines. It focuses on reducing over-prescribing of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and sedatives used to manage behaviour, rather than treating underlying mental illness.

We reviewed a range of medicine records, which demonstrated people’s medicine information was accurate and up to date. Training records showed that staff had completed training to administer medicines. Staff competency was also regularly assessed to ensure they were putting their training into practice.

People’s relatives fed back positively regarding medicines. One relative told us, ‘They [staff] always help [person] with medicines, [person] wouldn’t be able to do it themselves.’