Avida Supported Living

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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. For example, incidents and accidents were analysed to identify any emerging patterns. Learning was also taken in relation to what may cause individual people to become anxious. Where learning was identified, action was taken to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. This was informed by advice gained from other health and social care professionals and others who knew people well.

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 access a range of services to help them maintain their health and well-being. These included GPs, social workers, appointees, dentists and other specialist services. Relatives said they were kept informed if their family members had to attend for routine or emergency health treatment. Health and social care professionals told us referrals to their services were appropriate and timely.

Staff accompanied people to attend their appointments to ensure continuity of care. Staff understood what key information and items, such as medicines, needed to be taken when people transferred between services. One staff member said they would take the person’s medicines with them and told us, “[Staff] would carry them for the [person’s] safety.”

At the time of the inspection a new electronic system was being introduced to share important information when people required admission to hospital and other organisations. Staff were in the process of being trained to download this from the provider’s electronic care system. This would ensure other healthcare staff understood how best to support the person, including their communication methods, likes, dislikes and daily routines.

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 by staff who had received safeguarding training and understood how to identify any safeguarding concerns. Staff knew how to escalate safeguarding concerns and were confident senior staff would take action to support people, should these be identified.

Relatives were complimentary about how any safeguarding concerns were resolved. A health and social care professional told us staff worked closely with them to effectively manage sensitive safeguarding concerns. They told us, “With safeguarding they [staff] make sure they look into it properly.”

A health and social care professional told us that staff worked collaboratively and ensured Court of Protection Orders were followed in a sensitive and appropriate way.

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's risks were identified and plans were put in place to mitigate these. For example, in relation to choking, falls, and the increased risks people experienced because of their underlying diagnosis and health conditions. Some people could demonstrate anxiety or distress in certain situations. Staff had developed strategies with people, relatives and other health and social care professionals where people were at risk of becoming anxious. People’s care plans and risk assessments contained detailed guidance about possible triggers and informed staff about the most appropriate way to support people. This helped to ensure incidents did not escalate and people did not experience prolonged distress. This led to a calmer, more comfortable environment which people reacted positively to.

Staff had been trained to support people who may be anxious or distressed and understood what might cause this to happen and how to manage this. For example, some people found changes in their routine challenging. One staff member said, “You would calm them, no shouting, you respect them at all times. You are friendly in your approach, you talk to them. You divert them from their triggers. It's not long till they start laughing again.”

Staff worked effectively with other organisations to ensure clear strategies were in place to manage people’s risks. One health and social care professional told us, “There is a consistent messaging when conflict occurs.” This helped to ensure all parties focused on managing risks to people’s safety.

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

People’s rooms reflected what mattered to them and prompted them to connect with their past and current hobbies and interests. People chose what items they wanted in their rooms and were comfortable to spend their time in different areas of the home as they wished. Relatives were positive about the environments their family members lived in.

Staff supported people to reduce risks from the environment by checking people’s landlords had carried out appropriate safety checks. Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place and people participated in regular emergency fire evacuation drills to promote their safety.

At 1 address we found some actions could be taken to reduce risks to people further, for example, by securing wardrobes to walls. The provider took immediate action to advocate for people, and this was resolved without delay.

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 were supported by sufficient staff. Relatives were positive about the number of staff available to support their family members and the skills staff used when supporting them. Staff felt empowered to make suggestions for increasing staffing when people’s needs emerged or changed, and their suggestions were positively responded to. For example, a new “waking night” shift had been introduced to meet people’s needs and reduce risks to people.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were recruited safely. This included checking their eligibility to work in the UK, obtaining references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. The DBS checks help employers make safer recruitment decisions and prevents unsuitable people from working with vulnerable people.

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 had received training which helped them reduce the likelihood of the spread of infections. Staff told us they had access to the PPE and equipment they needed to support people safely. Systems were in place for senior staff to check on the cleanliness of the service provided. This included how people were supported to manage the flow of items which required laundering, the cleanliness of people’s homes and food hygiene.

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 worked with staff to reduce risks in relation to medication administration. For example, people decided with support from staff where their medication was to be stored.

Staff were not allowed to administer people's medicines until they had been trained to do this and their competency was checked.

Use of ‘as required’ medicines was kept to a minimum, and was only used as a last resort. Staff were guided to administer ‘as required’ medicines safely through protocols in place.

Staff knew how to recognise if people may require pain relief when people were not able to verbally express this themselves.

Processes were in place to check people's medicines were administered safely and as planned. This included a flag to alert senior staff if people's medicines had not been administered at the time planned. Staff understood what actions to take if there had been an error in administering people’s medicines.