Everlife (Swindon)

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 72 (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.

The registered manager kept records of accidents and incidents, and appropriate actions were taken following these. They shared learning with staff through training sessions, emails to staff and in staff supervisions. At the time of the inspection, there were plans to introduce new care planning software which would enable messages to be sent to staff to share any adjustments required following safety incidents.

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.

The registered manager explained how they supported safe transitions into other services, such as hospitals. The provider’s care planning system enabled paramedics to access people’s information, such as people’s medical needs and history to inform any treatment decisions. One person told us staff were flexible in their visit times. The person commented, “If you have a hospital appointment they will move things around, even come earlier than they start so I’m ready to go to hospital at 8.30am.”

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 did not raise any safeguarding concerns. Staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse. Information about the local authority safeguarding procedure was shared with staff when they joined the service. We saw incidents were referred to safeguarding where appropriate. There was a safeguarding policy in place which outlined procedures, and we saw this was being followed.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Some areas of identified risk had not been adequately assessed. For example, there was no risk assessments in place relating to self-harm and choking for 2 people, despite their care plan referencing these areas. This meant staff may not have all information available to mitigate these risks which put people at risk of harm. However, staff knew people well which minimised the risks. Following this feedback, the registered manager put these risk assessments in place.

People and relatives did not raise any concerns about how risks were managed. Risk assessments that were in place had been reviewed regularly.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Leaders undertook environmental risk assessments of people’s homes to ensure their safety. Where people had equipment, staff visually checked this before using it. One staff member commented, “Hoists we don't use if not checked, we always check dates, make sure they are serviced. If we notice anything like it is going slow, we would call the office.”

When new equipment was put in place for people, leaders worked alongside the occupational therapy team to train staff how to use it.

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 said staff came on time and stayed for the full duration. Comments included, “They [staff] are very good, very punctual, and let us know if running late” and “They [staff] stay the right amount of time.” Staff had completed a range of training relevant to people’s needs. Staff had been recruited safely and received regular supervisions.

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. People said staff wore personal protective equipment [PPE] where required and disposed of PPE appropriately. One person commented, “They always wear PPE, they are very particular about that, they change between tasks, that’s important to me I don’t want any infection.” Staff had received training in infection prevention and control. There was a policy in place which outlined procedures for staff.

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 as prescribed. People had detailed ‘when required’ PRN protocols in place. There was a detailed medicines policy which outlined procedures for staff. One person was prescribed a blood thinning medication, however there was no risk assessment in place for this. We raised this with the registered manager who was responsive and took action to ensure all blood thinning medications were risk assessed going forward.