Spencers Lodge

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. Systems were in place for recording and analysing incidents and events such as safeguarding issues, complaints and accidents. Following incidents or events, staff had an opportunity to discuss what had gone well or what could be done differently to improve the management of similar situations in the future. Records showed, and staff told us, learning was shared across the team to ensure people’s support was provided in a consistent and safer way.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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. People told us they felt safe living at Spencers Lodge and this was echoed by relatives. Information was available in easy to read documents about how people should expect to be treated and what to do if they felt unsafe.

One person told us, “I feel safe because staff help me feel that way.” Other people used signs or pictures to show us they felt safe and also that they knew who to go to if they didn’t feel safe. When speaking about keeping safe in the community, one person said they would tell the police if they had any concerns.

The provider shared concerns openly and in a timely way with external stakeholders such as the local authority. Staff were trained to identify and manage any situations where people’s safety or human rights may be compromised. Where people’s liberty had been restricted, the provider had ensured this was done lawfully using the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) process.

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. Risks associated with needs such as epilepsy, nutrition and developing independence had been assessed. Support plans guided staff about how to manage those risks in a safe and least restrictive way and were reviewed regularly.

People were involved as much as they were able to be in understanding and managing risks. For example, one person told us how they were learning to travel safely on public transport. Another person showed us how they stayed safe around kitchen equipment such as kettles.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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. People and their relatives felt there were enough well-trained staff to provide the support people needed and wanted. Work rotas showed enough staff were deployed to meet people’s needs and commissioned support hours.

A person said, “Lots of staff; they help me.” One relative said, “The staff are consistent and although there are agency staff, we know them. I feel the staff have the knowledge needed to care and support [Loved one].” The registered manager agreed to support other relatives in relation to their worries about the use of agency staff.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were recruited safely and they were suitable to work with people living at Spencers Lodge. Recruitment processes included a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, identity check and previous employment checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Staff undertook a programme of induction and on-going training to ensure they maintained the knowledge and skills necessary to support people in the right way. A member of staff said, “There’s loads of training going on, it’s really good.”

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 environment was clean and tidy. Information was available in easy to read formats about infection prevention and control (IPC), including good handwashing methods. Records showed people were supported with immunisations against infections such as flu and covid.

Staff helped people to understand IPC when supporting them with things like keeping their bedrooms clean, doing laundry and prompting hand washing. For example, one person showed us how they were supported with their laundry, which demonstrated their understanding of keeping dirty laundry separate from clean laundry. One person said, “I still need help keeping my bedroom clean and tidy, but I’m getting there, I’m learning.”

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. People’s medicines were stored securely in their bedrooms. Systems were in place to regularly check things like storage temperatures and stock balances. Staff understood people’s medicine requirements and how they liked to take their medicines. Staff received training in how to manage medicines safely. Staff were also aware of national work programmes such as ‘Stopping over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people (STOMP)’ which underpinned medicines management approaches.

Some people were prescribed medicines that were only used in certain circumstances (known as prn) and protocols were in place to support staff to administer them correctly. One person was supported to manage their own regular medicines. They had completed a staged learning process to enable them to do this safely and staff regularly checked their progress. The person told us, “It’s good, I do my own tablets. They (staff) help me if I need them and they check things so it’s all good.”