Anchor Trust (The Laureates)

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 75 (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.

Incidents, accidents and near misses were consistently recorded, with clear and detailed descriptions of each event. Falls monitoring and analysis were thorough and demonstrated good oversight. The registered manager was able to clearly explain the processes in place and showed strong understanding and oversight of safety practices.

Actions arising from incidents were identified, with evidence they had been addressed. Staff were kept informed through a range of communication methods, including monthly staff meetings, WhatsApp updates and informal one to one discussions.

Staff completed reflective work following any errors to support learning and continuous improvement. An accident, incident and near-miss procedure was in place to guide staff in reporting and managing safety events.

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-admission assessments were completed before people received care, and these were updated again on the day of admission to ensure information was current and accurate. A further review of the pre-admission assessment took place after one month to confirm the care and support plan continued to reflect the person’s needs.

Information from assessments and reviews was shared with staff, who signed to confirm they had read and understood the updates. The provider kept people informed and involved throughout the process, ensuring they understood what was happening and had the opportunity to contribute to decisions about their care.

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 had safeguarding policies and procedures in place to guide staff in recognising, reporting and responding to concerns. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and children, and all staff were up to date with the required training.

Safeguarding was discussed regularly during team meetings, and staff received relevant briefings when updates or new information became available. This supported ongoing awareness and ensured staff remained confident in their responsibilities.

The registered manager demonstrated a clear understanding of safeguarding processes, including their duty to notify the Care Quality Commission of safeguarding concerns. They were able to explain the notification process and provide examples

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 worked with people to understand and manage risks by taking a holistic approach. Staff had completed relevant e-learning training, including falls awareness, moving and handling, and first aid, which supported safe practice. Risks were also discussed during team meetings to ensure staff remained alert to any changes or emerging issues.

Behavioural support tools were available for use if required; however, these were not needed for anyone currently using the service. The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of when such tools would be appropriate and how they should be used.

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

Environmental care plans were in place for each person, detailing any room specific considerations and risks, including equipment, flooring and the use of oxygen where applicable. These plans supported staff to understand and manage environmental factors that could impact- people’s safety.

Monthly health and safety audits were completed, and evidence of these was shared during the assessment. A health and safety policy was also in place and readily accessible to staff in the staff room.

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 had set visit times in place for home-care support, and a rota was in operation. This was observed during the assessment. The provider monitored the actual times staff arrived for visits. While this information was not yet used to look for wider trends or themes, an example was provided where monitoring identified a staff member who was regularly late, and appropriate action was taken. Feedback from people and their relatives confirmed that staff arrived on time for scheduled visits.

Staff were recruited safely, and all required pre-employment checks had been completed. Staff were also up to date with mandatory training.

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 provider had infection prevention and control (IPC) policies and procedures in place to guide staff in managing and reducing infection risks. Staff had completed the required IPC e-learning modules, ensuring they were trained in safe practice.

Spot checks were carried out and included direct observations of IPC practice, such as handwashing. Personal protective equipment (PPE), including gloves and aprons, was available in the staff room, supporting staff to follow safe infection control procedures. Posters promoting good IPC practice were displayed in staff areas as visual reminders.

Staff involved in food preparation had completed food hygiene training, including food induction and food foundation training, which was refreshed annually.

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.

Medicine audits were in place and provided ongoing assurance that medicines were being managed safely. Staff had completed the required medicines competencies, and PRN (as needed) protocols were available to guide staff in administering medicines appropriately. Medicine Administration Records (MARs) were in place and were completed accurately.

People told us staff administered their medicines safely and explained what their medicines were for. One person said, “No concerns, they will explain.”