Ridgemoor Road

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to 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 incidents. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The registered manager gathered accident and incident information on a tracker which was reviewed regularly. This gave a detailed overview of the type of accident/incident, a description, who was notified, a route cause analysis and whether any lessons had been learnt. It also highlighted where care plans and risk assessments required updates. Staff were provided with an accident/incident and near miss flow chart to follow for guidance.

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. Pre assessments were completed prior to a person moving into the service to ensure their needs could be met. During the inspection process a person was moving into the service. Staff from Ridgemoor Road had visited the persons previous care service to gather information and carry out observations of how the person chose to have their support. The person also made visits to Ridgemoor Road prior to moving in to familiarise themselves with their new home and the people who lived there. There were systems in place to share information about people should they need to go to hospital in the event of an emergency in the form of Heath Passports. A hospital passport ensures healthcare staff understand how best to support the person, including communication methods, likes, dislikes and daily routines.

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. All relatives we spoke with told us they felt their loved ones were safe living at Ridgemoor Road. A relative shared, “Yes, they do feel safe, the reason why I can say this is, they feel they need to be in contact with their carer. I'm family but their carers mean more to them than I do, I know that sounds a bit silly, but because they do everything necessary for them and I don't apart from love them. All I can say is their support from the carers are 100%”. Staff had received training in safeguarding and vulnerable adults and understood their roles and responsibilities to ensure people were safe. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns, and these would be listened to and acted upon by the management team. One staff member shared where they had raised concerns about a temporary staff member, the registered manager took prompt action to address the concerns.

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. We observed some people walked around freely within both bungalows and some people spent time in their rooms independently or in communal areas. We observed staff carrying out safe transitions when supporting people with moving and handling practices. Risks relating to the service and to individual people were assessed. These included risks associated with the environment, mobility, skin care, medicines and eating and drinking. Risk assessments formed part of the support plan for each person.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. There were extensive renovation works being completed at the time of our inspection. Environmental risk assessments had been carried out where required. Environmental checks were carried out by both external contractors and staff to ensure the service was safe and clean. People’s rooms were personalised and arranged in a way which met their support needs, personal preferences and choices. The provider had a robust contingency plan in place in the event of an emergency, such as fire, flooding, staff shortages, structural damage and electrical concerns. People had personal emergency evacuation plans in place and regular fire drills were conducted by staff who were trained as fire marshals.

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. Staff were recruited safely and pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure members of staff were safe to work with vulnerable people. These included references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS). A DBS is a criminal record check to ensure the staff member is of good character to work with people at the service. Staff had received the relevant training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to support people safely and effectively. Staff had completed the required level of training to support people with a learning disability and autistic people. Additional training and opportunities were provided to staff who chose to gain further skills. One staff member told us they were happy with the current training they had been given, whilst another told us they were looking forward to gaining additional knowledge by completing a level 3 care qualification.

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. One representative told us, “Whenever I’ve visited it's always seemed to be a lovely, clean and happy environment”. People’s rooms were personalised and clean. Staff shared cleaning of the service between their shifts and had received training in infection prevention. The service had a policy and procedures in place for infection prevention and control, and regular audits were completed by staff. However, we identified some gaps in the daily kitchen recordings. We shared this with the registered manager who took prompt action to ensure improvements were made.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. However, whilst there was no impact to people, we identified not all medicines had open dates on them, and some ‘as and when required’ protocols did not hold the most current information. These issues were discussed in staff meetings and had been highlighted by the registered manager. The registered manager told us they were in the process of appointing a medicines champion who would be carrying out additional checks on medicines to ensure improvements were made. ‘As and when required’ protocols had been reviewed and updated by our second visit. Relatives told us they were happy with the way their loved ones were supported with medicines. One relative told us, “I don’t have any concerns around medication, as long as they get the medication at the time they are supposed to have it, they will be fine. They keep me updated with any change of medication”. The service liaised with healthcare professionals to review medicines regularly and there was evidence the service was regularly reviewing and following the principles of Stopping over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people (STOMP). Staff had received training in medicines and had their competency checked.