SeeAbility - The Willows

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.

Systems were in place to report, investigate and monitor accidents and incidents. Staff reported concerns which were reviewed and acted upon by the registered manager. Where changes to people’s support or updates on risks were required, this was shared with staff to minimise the risks of concerns happening again. The registered manager told us, “We review and will discuss in handovers and in team meetings. If we need to follow up, we will give staff a read and sign form to check their understanding of anything which has changed.”

Whilst the number of accidents and incidents in the service were low, processes were still followed to ensure any themes and trends could be identified and addressed.

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’s needs were assessed prior to them moving to The Willows. The assessment processes gathered detailed information from different sources to ensure the service was able to meet people’s needs. Consideration was also given to how people would get along with each other and if their support needs and personalities were compatible. People and their relatives/representatives were invited to spend time visiting the service prior to moving in to ensure it was the right place for them.

Each person had a care passport in place which provided important information such as what was important to them, their communication style and potential risks to their safety and well-being. The passport was available to share with health care professionals and hospital teams to enable a consistent approach to their support needs when accessing different 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.

People appeared to be at ease in the company of staff. Relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe from the risk of harm. One relative told us, “All (family member’s) team are great, there’s never been an issue with that.”

Staff had completed safeguarding training and were able to describe potential types of abuse and signs of concern and reporting procedures. Information regarding how to report concerns externally was available to all staff. One staff member told us, “We have the responsibility to protect them for harm. I would have to call the manager, do a body map (if needed) and they would take it further and investigate. We know about Whistleblowing, and there is information on our systems and on the noticeboard.”

Where concerns had arisen, these were reported to the local authority and any additional information requested was shared openly. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities under ‘duty of candour.’ They told us, “Of course if anything happens, we need to be transparent and apologise that it has happened. If it’s something we need to learn from, we will correct ourselves.”

Where people needed to have restrictions in place, to keep them safe, this was done in their best interest, and followed correct legal procedures, known as 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.

Relatives told us they felt risks to people’s safety were managed well. One relative told us, “I’m happy with everything and they seem to understand (family member) much better now. I don’t worry about safety.”

Staff were able to share information regarding risks to people’s safety and the support they required to minimise potential harm. People support plans contained information relating to risks such as mobility, choking, taking part in specific activities and any individual health needs. People were supported to take positive risks in a safe way such as taking part in swimming sessions and companion cycling. The detailed guidance in place helped to ensure staff were aware of people’s needs and the support they needed to remain safe whilst being able to do things they enjoyed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. However, we found the environment required re-decoration in some areas and additional attention in relation to people’s sensory needs may be beneficial.

Whilst the service was generally clean and well-maintained there were areas of the home which required refurbishment. The provider told us they were aware of the concerns and were in the process of reviewing plans for the building. This included the re-modelling of the bathroom to replace the broken bath and looking to extend the lounge area to provide a more useable space for people. The provider and registered manager acknowledged redecoration was required in other areas to create a fresher and homelier feel.

People lived in a safe environment. The provider ensured that equipment was well-maintained and served at the required intervals. Staff were trained in the use of equipment and were aware of potential risks when supporting people with their care. The service was supported by a dedicated team as part of the head office function which ensured all required maintenance was completed. Regular in-house checks of equipment were completed by staff as required. This included checking fire safety systems were functioning correctly.

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 had access to support from a consistent staff team. Staff told us that whilst they were aware of everyone’s support needs, they generally supported the same people to ensure consistency. We observed this meant people and staff had built trusting relationships.

Staff received a comprehensive induction and were given time to shadow more experienced staff members until they felt comfortable in their roles. One staff member told us, “I was given time to read everything, and colleagues are always really happy to help, even if I ask the same question again. There is good team work here.”

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and received regular supervision to discuss their performance, good practice or learning needs. One staff member told us, “The training is very useful, if you don’t do training, you don’t know how to do the job properly and support people.” A second staff member said, “(Supervision) is the time you can bring out everything you need to discuss, and they talk you through everything. It helps you develop; there is help, encouragement and support everywhere here.”

Safe recruitment practices were followed to ensure fit and suitable staff were employed to work at the service. Staff files contained evidence of recruitment checks including application forms where gaps in employment were explored, references from previous employers, right to work and identity checks being completed. In addition, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were in place for all staff. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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.

Staff received training in infection prevention and control and were able to describe the systems in place to minimise risks. Infection prevention and control audits were completed to monitor standards and staff practice within the home.

We observed staff had access to personal protective equipment, and this was safely disposed of. The home was cleaned to a good standard, and cleaning schedules were in place for staff to follow.

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’s medicines were securely stored in their rooms to ensure they had privacy and autonomy when being supported with their medicines. Records showed people were supported with their medicines in line with their prescriptions and person-centred support plans were in place. The temperatures medicines were stored at were monitored and recorded and prompt action taken where temperatures were reaching unsafe levels. There was an adequate stock of prescribed medicines which was closely monitored by staff.

The service was working in line with the principles of STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or Both). The registered manager and staff worked closely with relevant healthcare professionals to review people's needs and reduce the use of medicines where this was appropriate. Where people were prescribed medicines to be administered on a when-required basis for health conditions such as constipation, pain, and anxiety, guidance was available in support plans. This helped to ensure these medicines were administered appropriately and in line with people’s needs.

Staff received training and were competency assessed to handle medicines safely. Regular medicines audits and stock counts were completed to ensure robust medicines management processes were consistently followed.