Harvey Lane

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Where things went wrong, the service shared information with the staff team to drive improvements. The service engaged positively with external agencies such as the local authority to monitor and make positive changes at the service. Staff were involved in exercises to reflect upon incidents and shared ideas on how to provide better care. The registered manager was open and transparent, and demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement.

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.

A strong emphasis was placed upon working in partnership with healthcare partners. A person living at the service spoke positively of the relationship they had with their healthcare professionals and felt involved in their care in conjunction with the service. The manager had prompted and facilitated meetings between people, their families and the service to agree plans of care or treatment together. This joined up approach was further reflected within care records, which recorded conversations and advice accurately to ensure information was shared correctly to the wider staff team.

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.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding and had received appropriate training. When asked if they felt people were safe, one staff member told us, “I have no concerns for people’s safety, we have worked tirelessly to build confidence with people who live here, it’s a new phase entirely.”

We reviewed records relating to safeguarding concerns, and found them to be well organised, appropriately managed and thoroughly investigated.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found the service was working in line with Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

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 relating to peoples care needs were generally well managed, and the service applied the least restrictive options whilst balancing risk. We observed one person who required the support of a staff member at all times, to be left alone. We queried this and the manager took immediate action to address this shortfall. Whilst no harm had come to the person, their care plan reflected there was a potential risk of harm to themselves should they be unsupervised.

Where people were at risk of using items as ligatures, the service had developed a dynamic approach to ensuring practice was not unnecessarily restrictive. For example, one person at risk of using items as a ligature had access to these items unless their behaviour indicated this was no longer safe. This was proportionate to the level of risk identified for the person and ensured restrictions on items were not disproportionate.

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

A range of audits and safety checks were in place at the service to ensure the environment was safe and well maintained. The provider had a refurbishment plan underway and was improving areas of the service to better suit people’s needs.

Risks relating to the environment had been identified and mitigated appropriately. For example, it had been identified that window blinds in the sensory room could present a risk to people, therefore they had been adapted to be removed if needed, and a privacy film applied to the windows as an additional measure.

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.

The staff and leadership teams at the service were knowledgeable and skilled. The service had a low turnover of staff, which minimised disruption to people’s care. From reviewing staffing numbers and undertaking observations, we were assured there were sufficient staff to support people safely.

Staff were recruited safely and received a structured induction before working independently.

People and relatives spoke highly of the staff team. One person living at the service said, “The staff are always nice to me”.

When speaking about whether they felt their loved one was safe at Harvey Lane, a relative told us, “I really don’t have any worry about [relatives’] safety”.

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 service was clean and hygienic yet did not look clinical. Staff received training in infection prevention and control, and personal protective equipment was available for them to use. The service had ensured the service retained its homely feel whilst ensuring it was easy to clean. People were encouraged to keep their private bedrooms clean and were involved in maintaining the cleanliness standards of their living space.

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 medicine as intended by the prescriber. Appropriate documentation was in place to ensure medicines were administered safely, such as protocols for medicines prescribed to be taken ‘as required’.

Staff received training and competency checks from a senior member of staff before administering medicines to people. Systems of auditing medicines were effective. The process for reporting and recording any medicine errors was clear, supporting effective oversight and promoting people’s safety.