Support for Living Limited - 25/27 Haymill Close

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 promoted a learning culture where staff shared their experiences to help improve care for people using the service. Staff reported and recorded all accidents, incidents and things that went wrong. Managers investigated these and discussed where improvements were needed with staff. Managers from across the organisation shared learning with different staff teams. Staff confirmed they had regular training and discussed lessons learnt. Relatives told us they were informed when things went wrong and asked for their views to help make improvements. A relative commented that following an incident, “I was immediately called and told everything. They apologised and they had meetings to discuss how to prevent this happening again. This left me feeling comfortable.”

The provider supported people to experience safe transitions between services. Staff kept records of information to share with hospitals and healthcare professionals. These records explained about people’s needs and how they communicated. Staff supported people when they had to be admitted to hospital. The provided guidance and instruction for nursing staff and assisting when needed. For example, helping people who were staying in hospitals with meals and supporting communication.

Staff worked closely with another care provider to share information when a person moved. This ensured they were able to assist with a safe move, and the new provider had the information they needed about the person.

The provider had systems to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff undertook training to understand how to safeguard people and how to recognise and report abuse. Staff were able to explain how they followed these procedures. Relatives told us people were safely cared for and that staff were open and transparent when things went wrong. Managers and staff had worked with the local authority to investigate any safety concerns and help to protect people from avoidable harm.

Relatives told us people were safe at the service. A relative commented, “[Person] is safe without a doubt. The staff are a great bunch and are very honest.”

The provider requested legal authorisations where restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for people who did not have the capacity to consent to these. Decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests and for their safety.

Cupboards where cleaning products and chemicals were stored were not always secured. Some people were at risk because they could access these and did not have the mental capacity to understand the risks of consuming or spilling these products. We discussed this with the management team. They took immediate action to speak with all staff, secure the cupboards and put up extra signage to remind staff about the importance of this. We were assured they had taken steps to mitigate the risk of reoccurrence.

Staff assessed the risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. They worked with other professionals and people’s representatives to plan how to safely care for people. Staff had undertaken a range of training to understand about safe care and managing risks. Staff regularly reviewed and updated risk assessments.

We saw staff supporting people in a safe way.

Relatives told us risks were well managed. A relative commented, “[Person] is safe, and staff really care for [them]. They support [person] to walk around safely.”

Staff did not use any form of restraint. They explained how they managed situations when people became agitated. Relatives confirmed this and told us staff used alternative solutions to help people feel safe, calm and to reduce anxiety.

People lived in a safe and well-maintained environment. Staff carried out checks to make sure the environment and equipment were safe to use. People personalised their bedrooms. People had unrestricted access within the home. The provider sourced appropriate professionals to carry out assessments of fire safety. Staff completed training to understand how to safely evacuate people in the event of an emergency. Staff carried out regular checks on fire safety equipment.

The provider deployed enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Relatives told us they thought there were enough staff and people did not have to wait for care. Relatives told us the staff were skilled, kind and knew people well.

There were appropriate systems for recruiting and selecting staff. These included checks on their identity, skills and knowledge. Staff completed an induction and regular training to understand how to safely care for people. Managers assessed their competencies and skills at regular intervals. Staff told us training was helpful and equipped them for their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us they were well supported. They had regular meetings with their manager to appraise and discuss their work.

The provider had procedures to help prevent and control infections. Staff understood these. The environment was clean, and staff followed schedules for cleaning and laundry. Staff had information and training about infection control and food safety. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks, gloves and aprons. Relatives told us they thought the home was kept clean.

Staff supported people to take their medicines safely and as prescribed. Staff worked with prescribing doctors to ensure people’s medicines needs were met. They supported people to reduce medicines when appropriate in line with the principles of “Stopping over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people (STOMP)”. This is national programme to stop the inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic medications.

Staff undertook training to understand about safe medicines management. Managers conducted regular audits to check medicines systems. Staff kept accurate and clear records to show when medicines were administered.

Staff assessed and planned for people’s medicines needs. Staff created guidelines for the use of as required (PRN) medicines. These helped them understand when these medicines were needed.

Managers investigated medicines errors. A senior member of staff, who was a subject matter expert on medicines management, had spent time at the service working with staff and reviewing practice to help improve the ways medicines were managed. Staff told us this had been useful.