Stride East

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 69 (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. Accidents and incidents were analysed by the provider for trends to help maintain oversight in the service. Staff discussed areas requiring improvement and learning in meetings. However, records needed to ensure all learning opportunities were followed up and recorded. The provider had already identified this need and had plans in place to improve the records in the service.

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.Staff completed handovers and used electronic alerts to share significant information about people’s health and support needs. Staff contacted healthcare professionals when concerns arose and supported people to attend appointments. Hospital passports were available to support the safe sharing of information when people moved between healthcare services.

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 had received safeguarding training and described how they would protect people and report concerns. Safeguarding information was recorded on people’s electronic profiles, and the provider had systems for submitting referrals and monitoring concerns with the local authority. People consistently said they felt safe and described staff as supportive. The provider demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities when depriving an individual of their liberty for safety purposes.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. However, improvement was needed in how risks to people were identified, mitigated and recorded.People had contributed to reviews and decisions about their care with care plans developed to help give guidance to staff. Staff knew people well and could describe how they supported them safely while promoting independence. However, the providers approach to assessing and recording risk was inconsistent. Risk assessments were missing for identified risks relating to falls, anticoagulant medicines and smoking, other recorded risks needed expanding to ensure staff had clear guidance on how they should address the concern. The providers oversight systems had not identified these shortfalls.

While there was no evidence this impacted people’s care, improvements were needed in how the service identified and recorded risks. In response to feedback, staff implemented new records, while the provider considered a review of their audits in this area.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Equipment was serviced, fire checks and drills were recorded, and staff could report maintenance concerns. Some age-related repairs were required; however, the provider had an ongoing maintenance plan for the service to help maintain a safe environment.

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 received detailed handovers, and recruitment checks were completed before staff started work. Staff described feeling supported and able to seek guidance with regular supervisions recorded. The provider used a dependency tool to calculate safe staffing figures and people told us staffing was appropriate. One person when asked if there was enough staff said, “Yes, I don’t think it’s understaffed.”

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 described the home as clean, one person said, “The communal areas are clean and look nice.” Staff were knowledgeable about food hygiene processes and the use of personal protective equipment. Domestic staff were present throughout the day, and cleaning schedules and audits were in place to help maintain an infection free environment.

People received their medicines safely, and systems were in place for the safe administration and monitoring of medicines, which included the use of controlled drugs. Staff were trained and assessed as competent, stock balances were accurate, and regular audits were completed. However, some areas of practice required improvement. Records did not always demonstrate that guidance was in place for people who had medication on a when required basis and body maps were not always in place for people with topical creams. Temperature records to ensure the safe storage of medication was not recorded in line with national guidance. While recording required strengthening, there was no identifiable impact to people due to these concerns and staff acted quickly on feedback to rectify this.