Bradley Apartments

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 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.

The provider worked with the psychology team to develop an incident analysis document. This allowed a regular review of all incidents. It provided further insight into times and days when incidents were more likely to happen. This allowed the provider to consider any themes, trends and any required action. The staff team were then informed of any changes. Staff were also involved in discussions around individual people and their support, and ways to improve the service were explored.

Staff understood their responsibilities in reporting incidents. One staff member said, “We do get a debrief and they [management team] always check if we are okay.”

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 had access to a range of health professionals that were employed by the provider such as dieticians and psychologist who could be contacted for further support and advice. This allowed the provider to share concerns quickly and appropriately.

Hospital passports were in place; however, they had not been recently reviewed. We discussed this with the registered manager who provided us with assurance these would be revised.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider was previously in breach of this regulation and has taken actions to ensure this regulation had been met.

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. Staff received training and demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding. The registered manager investigated and reported safeguarding incidents appropriately.

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 appropriate assessments and applications had been made in line with the recommended procedures whilst still supporting people to live the lives they wanted.

One person told us, “I feel safe here,” and relatives commented, “I feel they [family member] are safe there and there is always someone to talk to if there is a problem.”

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. The provider was previously in breach of this regulation and has taken actions to ensure this regulation has been met.

Care plans and risk assessments contained details on how to keep people safe and free from harm.Care staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and the risks associated with their care. One staff member said, “We have time to read any care plans, and we are emailed if there are any updates, then we have time to familiarise our self with it.”

A behavioural support plan had been developed with input from the person. It showed how the person wanted staff to communicate with them, and this was reflected in the person’s support plan. This provided information for staff to support with a range of strategies, to support them safely and consistently.

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

The home was safe and well maintained. The Registered Manager completed a range of to help ensure the safety of the care home’s physical environment and fire safety equipment. These included electrical, legionella, water temperatures and fire safety checks.

Staff were able to explain the fire evacuation procedure and there was an emergency grab bag with people’s personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place.

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 told us they had regular supervisions and team meetings. Training records confirmed staff completed training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. The provider offered additional training in response to changes in people’s needs when required.

Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure pre-employment checks were carried out before they commenced their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

One relative said, “There is always enough staff and there are always staff if they [family member] want to go out.”

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. Systems were effective in maintaining a clean environment and managing risks of infection.

One person said, “Staff support me to keep my room clean and tidy” and this was also observed during the inspection. There were no malodours and each room was clean. Within each apartment, people had access to their own cleaning cupboard with the appropriate COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) information.

Staff had access to the personal protective equipment (PPE) when required and staff were able to identify when they should use PPE. All staff had completed training in infection prevention and control.

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.

Systems were in place tosafely administer and storemedicines. Electronic Medicines Administration Records (eMAR’s) confirmed thatpeople received their regular medicines as prescribed.

The service ensured people’s behaviour was not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines.Staff understood and implemented the principles of STOMP (stopping over-medication of people with a learning disability,autismor both) and ensured people’s medicines were reviewed by prescribers in line with these principles.

Staff followed effective processes to assess and provide the support people needed to take their medicines safely. This included where there were difficulties in communicating.

When people were prescribed ‘as and when required’ (PRN) medicines, person centred guidance was available to support staffadministering these medicines. Staff recorded the outcomes tomonitorwhether these medicines hadbeen effective in relieving symptoms.

Incident reporting processes were understood and followed by staff.