Affinity Supporting People (North Lancashire and Burnley)

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.

People were supported to be safe from avoidable harm because the provider’s policies embedded a strong learning culture across the service. Robust and clear systems were in place to understand and learn from safety events. The provider had strengthened their investigations into safety incidents, through a review of their end-to-end process and analysis of information gathered from data and technology systems.

Leaders encouraged an open culture. Regular staff meetings included opportunities for staff to reflect on and learn from events. Learning was shared across staff teams. Staff told us they felt supported by leaders and were able to openly discuss incidents and to learn from them.

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 were supported to transition safely into the service. The provider’s policies were thorough and included input from the person, their relatives and other professionals.

People were supported to move into services at their own pace, some people visited for meals and had short stays over a few weeks. People living in the service were able to get to know new people over time which helped people adapt to each other.

Relatives praised the transition process, one said “We are very happy, when [Name] moved in, they had pre visits, we were involved and we met everybody”

People had up to date hospital passports which included important information about their health and wellbeing needs should they need to go into hospital. One person whose needs had changed significantly had been supported to transition back into their home following a review of their needs and changes to the environment. The person commented, "I didn't think I would make it. I am glad I did and I am glad to be back home."

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 were supported to be safe from abuse and avoidable harm. The provider’s safeguarding policies and procedures were clear and robust. The provider was open and transparent when investigating safeguarding concerns and cooperated with other professionals.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and could recognise concerns and raise them appropriately when needed. Staff had a safeguarding app on their handsets which provided guidance safeguarding procedures and who to contact with their concerns.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found that where people needed the protection of DoLS authorisations, applications had been made to the appropriate local authority or the Court of Protection. Staff had received training in this area and the provider maintained an up-to-date record of current and pending authorisations.

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.

People were supported to understand and manage risks. The provider had robust policies and systems in place to identify the potential hazards and risks people may face. Risk management plans were detailed and included in support plans; these had been kept under review and updated as required. Staff told us they understood people’s safety needs and felt confident supporting people.

Positive risk-taking strategies enabled people to engage in activities they valued. Staff were knowledgeable about the safety needs of people they supported and said they felt confident supporting them.

Relatives praised staff approach to risks. One relative said, “We have been impressed with the level of care they have shown. We feel confident [Name] is safe and well cared for.”

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

Though we do not look in depth at the premises where the services are in people’s own tenancies, we found the provider had robust systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the environment. One relative praised how the provider had adapted a person’s room which had improved their physical safety.

The tenancies we visited had health and safety folders which included the fire risk assessment and records of fire drills. Staff had received appropriate training about cleaning chemicals, which had been stored safely.

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 provider’s recruitment policies and procedures helped ensure suitably skilled and qualified staff had been recruited. All necessary pre-employment checks had been completed prior to staff starting work. New staff were well supported through the providers onboarding procedures and had a buddy available through their induction to support them. Staff received regular feedback through the onboarding process. During induction staff received training pertinent to their roles.

All staff received regular mandatory training and bespoke training in relation to the specific needs of people they supported. Staff told us they found the training useful and praised the variety of training available. Staff meeting minutes supported staff to understand current issues and there were opportunities to focus on specific policies and topics.

Relatives praised the skills and knowledge of the staff. One person said, “The best thing about them is the calibre of the staff, their consistency and ability to adapt.”

Staff received regular supervision and appraisals from senior staff and were supported to learn and develop their practice.

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 were supported to maintain safe infection prevention and control practices. Staff had received training and had access to personal protection equipment, which was used when required.

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.

The provider’s medicines management policies and procedures supported the safe ordering, storage and administration of medicines. Staff training was to date and staff felt confident when supporting people with their medicines.

Where people had medicines when required, such as rescue medicines for epilepsy, pain relief or inhalers, there were clear protocols in place to guide staff when and how to administer them. Leaders maintained oversight of the use of these medicines with some protocols requiring staff to seek authorisation from seniors. People’s medicines were kept under review to ensure optimum use.