Ivolve Sutton Supported Living

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. This is the first assessment of the service. We have rated this key question 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 promoted a learning culture where staff shared their experiences to help improve care for people using the service. Staff recorded any accidents or incidents, and these were discussed to identify learning. Staff confirmed they were encouraged to contribute their views about how people’s support could be adapted to reduce the risk of further incidents.

The registered manager said the management team at the service followed a protocol when incidents occurred which involved debriefing staff, reviewing the person’s care plan, and identifying and implementing any lessons learned.

The provider worked with people and partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Staff ensured important information about people’s needs, including their healthcare needs, was available to professionals in the event of a medical appointment or a hospital admission.

Relatives told us their family members’ admission to the service had been managed well and said their family members had received good support to settle in. One relative told us their family member found transitions challenging and said the management team and staff had worked with the family to ensure the admission process was as smooth as possible. The relative told us, “We have navigated those transitions with them. Right from the beginning they were very open. Whatever issues we had, we sat down with them and figured out what solutions we could come up with.”

The provider worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from abuse, discrimination, and neglect.

Staff attended safeguarding training in their induction and had access to regular refresher training. Staff knew how to recognise potential abuse and how to report any concerns they had. The management team understood their responsibility to inform and work with the local authority should safeguarding incidents occur. There had been no safeguarding incidents since the registration of the service.

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. For example, 2 people had been supported by staff to visit London, which was a goal they had identified.

Assessments had been carried out to identify any risks involved in people’s care and measures put in place to mitigate these. For example, one person was supported by 2 staff when accessing the community to manage the potential risks associated with this.

People’s support plans included guidance for staff about how to mitigate risks, and staff understood how to manage risks while promoting choice and quality of life.

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

The property was managed by a social landlord. The landlord had a maintenance team which staff could contact for any issues and a housing officer carried out monitoring visits every 2 weeks.

The provider worked with the property landlord to ensure appropriate standards of safety were maintained. An environmental risk assessment had been carried out in August 2025 and a fire risk assessment completed by a fire safety consultant in November 2025. Staff carried out regular fire safety checks, and the landlord arranged inspection and certification of the fire alarm system.

Fire drills were carried out monthly and there was a personal emergency evacuation plan in place for each person which detailed the support they would need in the event of an emergency.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective induction, training and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s needs.

Relatives confirmed staff were always present to meet their family members’ needs when they visited. One relative said of staff, “They are always on hand so if [family member] calls, they are there.”

Staff completed an induction when they started work and ongoing training to ensure they had the skills to provide safe and effective care and support. Staff told us the training they attended was useful and equipped them for their roles and responsibilities.

Staff were recruited safely. The provider carried out pre-employment checks including obtaining a Disclosure and Barring Service certificate. Disclosure and Barring Service checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Staff assessed and managed the risk of infection. They controlled the risk of it spreading and understood their responsibility to share concerns with appropriate agencies if necessary.

Staff attended training in infection prevention and control and had access to personal protective equipment if they needed it. The staff team carried out regular cleaning to ensure good standards of hygiene were maintained. We observed that all areas of the service were clean and hygienic during our visits.

Staff made sure people’s medicines were managed safely and reviewed regularly.

Staff received training in medicines management, and their competency was assessed before they were authorised to administer medicines. The registered manager was aware of the STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People with a learning disability, autism, or both)initiative and had discussed its principles with staff.

None of the people living at the service at the time of our assessment managed their own medicines, although there was a process in place to support people to achieve this through risk assessment and support. Staff said people would be supported to develop the skills they needed to manage their own medicines if they wished.

Staff knew and respected people’s preferences about their medicines. For example, people's medicines were stored in lockable cabinets in their rooms, except one person who preferred their medicines to be kept in the medicines cabinet in the office.

Each person had an individual medicines profile which recorded any allergies and included guidance for medicines prescribed ‘as and when required’. Staff carried out regular medicines checks and medicines were audited as part of the provider's quality monitoring processes. The sample of medicines administration records we checked was accurate and up to date.