Homewards Limited - 48 Leonard Road

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.

Records showed there had been no serious accidents or incidents, however where learning needed to take place after any behaviour issues these were dealt with promptly and with transparency. For example, staff had reported where a person had been unable to sleep during the night. They discussed with the home manager potential causes to help prevent this affecting the person again. The provider ensured people were kept safe by reinforcing to staff to be honest and share any incidents. Staff recorded incidents and discussed what had happened with the manager, to help them learn and prevent reoccurrence in the future. Relatives told us they were informed if anything had happened and they appreciated the communication from the home and felt nothing was being hidden. The provider said, “The main priority is the safety of the resident, we always tell staff don’t hide anything."

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

People moving into the home experienced a smooth transition where the home, relatives and relevant health professionals communicated with each other. Staff were well equipped to support the transition as they were provided with the information needed to support people.

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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were kept safe living at the home and while they enjoyed life in the community. Relatives we spoke with told us their family members were kept safe by staff.

One person said, “I feel safe living here at no 48.” A relative said, “I see [person] every week I know he’s safe.”

Staff received annual safeguarding training and were able to tell us the action they would take to keep people safe if they witnessed or suspected abuse. Staff knew who to contact if they needed to alert the authorities of alleged abuse and how to whistleblow where action was not being taken to safeguard people living at the home.

A member of staff said, “I understand my safeguarding responsibilities and would raise any concerns immediately, reporting to management and escalating to the local authority, CQC, GP or police if necessary.” The same member of staff said, “I would challenge and report any concerns involving colleagues and would not cover up abuse.”

Restrictive practices were not used in the home and people were supported to access the community in a safe way with staff, to participate in activities of their choice and spend time with their loved ones.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Records confirmed appropriate legal authorisations were in place and were up to date when people had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) in place.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff received training in the MCA act and showed their understanding to support people to make decisions for themselves and where they would need decisions made in their best interest.

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.

Risk assessments were designed to keep people at the home safe while taking positive risks to enjoy their lives. Records showed people’s risk assessments were regularly reviewed and were up to date.

Staff were knowledgeable of people’s different needs and risks and how to protect them from avoidable harm. Records showed risk was clearly identified with clear guidelines for staff to follow to reduce the risk of potential harm. For example, staff were to inform people of their upcoming routines to keep them involved and to minimise the risk of triggering behaviours that caused them distress.

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

People’s home environment was safe. The home was free from trip hazards and people were able to move around the home without restriction.

The home was secure and maintenance checks of the home were up to date. Records confirmed health and safety checks were carried out, these included gas and safety checks and food hygiene checks to keep people protected.

Fire safety checks and emergency procedures were in place for safe evacuation and staff knew where to bring people to the meeting point.

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.

Staff were recruited to the service safely and in line with the providers policy. We reviewed a sample of recruitment records, and they confirmed information had been received to satisfy the provider that staff had the necessary skills and experience to support people.

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. DBS checks provide information about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Records confirmed staff received supervision with the home manager in line with the provider’s policy. Staff told us it was a valuable opportunity to discuss their role and how people within the home were. The home manager told us they used this as an additional opportunity to check they understood people’s needs, especially where they were a key worker and whether staff had any training needs.

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 home was free from malodour, and we observed people’s living spaces to be clean and tidy. Staff were responsible for cleaning the home daily and ensuring communal spaces and touch points were kept clean, this helped to reduce the spread of infection.

Relatives who visited provided positive feedback on the cleanliness of the home and told us the home was clean whenever they were there.

The infection control policy and procedure which staff were aware of and followed was readily available. Staff had access to suitable and enough cleaning products and personal protective equipment which included, gloves and aprons.

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 received their medicines safely from staff who had been trained in the safe administration of medicines. Records confirmed staff received annual medicines training and competency checks. The home manager performed monthly spot checks to check staff were adhering to the policies and procedures, this provided them with additional reassurance.

People’s medicines were regularly reviewed and the provider worked closely with people’s GP and pharmacy to ensure people with a learning disability or autistic people were not being over medicated, following the principles of Stopping Over Medication of People with a Learning Disability and Autistic people (STOMP).