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. Where learning was identified, action was taken to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. This also included in relation to staff safety.

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 and care commissioners. Staff also accompanied some people to their health appointments, so there was continuity of care.

Staff understood what key information and items, such as medicines, needed to be taken when people transferred between services.

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 confident any safeguarding concerns would be swiftly resolved. A relative said, “We haven’t had to raise any [such] concerns, but yes if there were any issues, I would call [registered manager].”

At the time of the inspection, no individuals using the service required any restrictive practices to ensure their safety. Staff understood in the future some people might require restrictions to keep them safe and meet their care needs. Systems were in place to manage this appropriately, including the use of Court of Protection Orders or Community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (c‑DoLS). Staff knew how these should be applied for if they were needed in a person’s best interests.

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 told us they were actively involved in decisions about how their safety and risks were managed. This included agreeing how and when staff should access their home.

People's risks were identified and plans were put in place to mitigate these. For example, in relation to their environment, falls, and the increased risks people experienced because of their underlying diagnosis and health conditions. People’s care plans and risk assessments contained guidance to inform staff about the most appropriate way to support people. This helped to ensure people’s risks were mitigated and they enjoyed a more comfortable and secure environment.

Staff had been trained to support people who may be anxious and understood what might cause this to happen and how to manage this. Staff worked effectively with people and other organisations to ensure clear strategies were in place to manage people’s risks arising from their underlying health conditions, such as diabetes.

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 spoke positively about how staff helped them maintain a safe environment. A person told us staff consistently ensured the equipment they needed to move safely around their home was within easy reach. They said, “They leave my walking trolley and stick. They know if I stand, I might fall.” The person also explained staff routinely checked for and removed potential hazards, adding, “[Staff] remove hazards, they do really good work.” Relatives were positive about the support their family members received to maintain safe environments.

Staff were supported to maintain their own safety through risk assessments which were in place. These assessments considered potential risks both when approaching people’s homes and when working within their home environments.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked well together to provide safe care which met people’s individual needs.

People were supported by enough staff to ensure their assessed needs were met safely. People and relatives spoke positively about the number of staff available, and the skills staff used when providing support. A person told us, “They are very prompt, never late even in bad weather. They stay the full hour.” A relative also commented on the consistency of staffing, saying, “The carers that come are the same, so 1 might come once or twice a week, another once or twice a week, but it’s the same ones regularly.”

Staff told us they felt able to raise suggestions for increasing staffing when people’s needs changed or new risks emerged, and they said these suggestions were acted on positively. For example, staff had worked with commissioners to secure additional funded care hours for some people. This helped ensure people’s needs were met safely and reduced potential risks.

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.

People told us staff supported them to maintain the cleanliness of their homes where this formed part of their planned care.

Staff had completed training which helped them reduce the risk of infection spreading. They told us they had access to the PPE and equipment they needed to support people safely. A staff member said, “You protect yourself first, or how can you care for others?” Staff also explained information about any infections was shared across the team, so they knew what steps to take to promote good infection control.

Systems were in place for senior staff to check on the cleanliness of the service provided.

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 were supported to work with staff to decide how they wished to receive help with their medicines, so this could be done safely and in line with their preferences. A person told us they preferred staff to order their medicines to ensure they always had what they needed to remain safe and well. People also described how staff checked their health before administering medicines, so they could be confident the correct dose was given for each day. A relative told us staff supported their family member to have topical pain relief, should this be needed.

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

Staff were guided to administer ‘as required’ medicines safely through protocols in place.

There were systems 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.