Support for Living Limited - 43 Shirley Gardens

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.

There were systems to learn when things went wrong. Staff reported accidents and incidents. The registered manager investigated these. Staff discussed incidents with people to help them feel involved with learning from these. Staff and people discussed how improvements could be made. Changes were made to the service when needed because of this learning. For example, adapting care plans, reviewing systems and providing additional staff training.

People told us they felt staff were open and transparent. They talked about things that went wrong. People felt there were opportunities to reflect and share their views.

Staff supported people to experience safe pathways and transitions. People living at the service had lived there for several years and were settled. When people first moved to the service, staff assessed their needs and asked them what they wanted from the service. Staff supported people to prepare for future moves. They liaised with external professionals to identify the right support for people.

Staff supported people to access other services. They had created easy to read guides about people’s health and communication needs. These were shared with external professionals when needed. For example, when people were admitted to hospital. This helped to ensure others could provide safe and personalised care when needed.

There were systems to help safeguard people from abuse. Staff and people using the service were given information about recognising and reporting abuse. This was always discussed with people during monthly meetings. People told us they felt safe and knew who to speak with if they had any concerns about abuse. Staff undertook safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities.

The provider had worked closely with external professionals to report and investigate allegations of abuse to help protect people from avoidable harm.

There were processed to ensure the provider obtained legal authorisations to safeguard people from any restrictions. However, at the time of our assessments, everyone using the service had the mental capacity to make decisions about their care. There were no restrictions and people were free to make their own choices.

Staff involved people in assessing and planning risks. People were supported to make informed choices about risk. Staff regularly reviewed risk assessments and risk management plans to make sure these were personalised, accurate and took account of people’s changing needs. For example, adjusting assessments and plans when people experienced an episode of poor mental health.

People explained staff helped to keep them safe by discussing risks and findings solutions to help manage these. For example, making sensible and safe decisions when travelling outside of the home.

Staff described examples of how personalised risk management plans had helped to improve people’s quality of life. For example, monitoring indicators of relapse had helped them quickly intervene and ensure people received the right support.

People lived in a safe and well-maintained environment. People told us they liked their bedrooms and communal spaces. People appeared relaxed and comfortable. They had the equipment and furniture they needed. Bedrooms reflected people’s personalities.

Staff undertook checks on health and safety. They reported any issues and the provider arranged for these to be addressed. There was an up-to-date fire risk assessment. People and staff knew what to do in the event of a fire.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. People told us they did not have to wait for support and staff were available when they needed them. Staff told us there were enough of them and they could request extra staffing when needed. For example, supporting people with a holiday or day trip. People told us staff understood their needs and knew them well. Their comments included, “Staff have good skills” and “Staff are supportive and helpful.”

There were relatively few changes in the staff team and staff support was consistent.

The provider had systems to check staff suitability during recruitment and induction. They carried out a range of checks. People using the service were involved in interviewing and selecting staff. New staff shadowed experienced workers. They completed a comprehensive induction which included training and assessments of their skills and knowledge. Staff had regular supervisions and appraisals of their work. They were invited to take part in training updates. Staff told us they felt well supported. They explained they had the information and training they needed to provide safe care.

There were systems to help prevent and control the spread of infection. Staff completed training to understand about good infection control processes. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) to use when needed.

The environment was clean and staff carried out audits on cleanliness. A member of staff was a dedicated infection control champion. They took a lead on checking processes were followed.

People told us their home was kept clean and they were happy with this aspect of the service.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Staff supported people to access healthcare professionals who reviewed their medicines. People told us they understood what their medicines were for and were happy with the support they received. We saw people were empowered with managing their own medicines. They asked staff for these and spoke with staff about the medicines they were taking. Staff assessed risks related to each person’s medicines. People were involved in administering some of their own medicines when this had been assessed as safe.

There were clear and accurate records relating to medicines, including when these were administered. Medicines were stored appropriately. Staff carried out checks and audits on medicines. The registered manager regularly assessed staff knowledge and competencies relating to medicines management.

Medicines errors and incidents were investigated. The provider took appropriate action to address any safety concerns relating to medicines.