Assessment and Enablement Team

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.

People were safe using the service. Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew how to report concerns if necessary. Risks to people were assessed and mitigated as far as possible. There were enough suitably trained and competent staff to support people with their care and reablement visits.

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.

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

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.

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. People told us they felt their care and support was managed and provided safely. One person said, “When I was going up the stairs, they [staff] were behind me and when I came down, they were in front, and all of that gave me confidence. They made me feel safe.”

Staff we spoke with told us they felt comfortable to report unsafe practice and were knowledgeable about safeguarding. One staff member informed us, “I do have safeguarding training, and I would report anything I saw if I had concerns. Our managers are very professional, and I know they would deal with any concerns properly.”

The provider had suitable adult safeguarding systems and procedures in place. A record of concerns and safeguarding incidents was maintained and monitored to help ensure these were responded to effectively and learnt from. We saw safeguarding training was completed by all staff. Records confirmed that the provider reported safeguarding concerns as required to the relevant agencies.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. One person told us, “There were 2 [staff] who came 1 morning, and they talked to me about what I would need, and they brought different sorts of aids to help me. They did speak to me about risks right at the beginning.”

Staff were knowledgeable about the risks people faced and how to support them to be safe. One staff member said, “We have detailed risk assessments in place so we can support people safely and reduce risks to people.”

People had risk assessments in place which guided staff on how to keep people safe. For example, if people were at risk of falls, a risk management plan was put in place to reduce the likelihood of any falls. Risk assessments were reviewed and updated quickly as people made progress with their reablement needs or if there had been any changes or incidents. Staff referred people to day centres, to Telecare (a monitoring service thatoffers remote support to elderly, disabled and vulnerable peoplewho live alone in their own homes) and the sensory team, to support then with settling back in their own homes safely.

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. We received positive comments from people about the staffing levels at the service. One person told us, “There’s a whole team of them [staff]. I have never had a new person. I have had no problems with the times they come.”

Staff told us they felt staffing numbers were sufficient to meet the needs of people and keep them safe. Staff informed us that they were well supported in their role and had regular and relevant training. One staff member said, “We are well supported, and I get all the help I need. Training is very good, and I do get regular supervision so I can raise any problems or concerns, or support needs I might have.”

Rotas demonstrated there were enough skilled and competent staff to ensure they could safely support people who used the service. We saw that an ongoing schedule of training was in place, to ensure staff kept up to date with good practice. New staff completed an induction period, which included shadowing more experienced staff to get to know people, as well as covering the basic training subjects. Records provided evidence that staff had regular 1-1 supervisions and annual appraisals. Staff’s performance was monitored and managed well. Safe recruitment practices were followed for staff working with children and adults. Checks were carried out including references and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).

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

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