SCC Adult Social Care Supported Living and Mallow Crescent short breaks service

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

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were not always addressed in a timely and comprehensive way. There was a lack of guidance for staff regarding how risks could be mitigated for some people. We found other instances where people were supported manage risks positively in a way which enhanced their opportunities. People were supported to visit the service prior to going for a short break to ensure it met with their needs and expectations. People received the support they required with their medicines and records showed prescription guidance was followed. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment practices were undertaken. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe from the risk of abuse. Safe infection prevention and control measures were followed, and the environment was maintained to a good standard.

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.

People were supported when accidents and incidents occurred, and systems were in place to minimise the risks of them happening again. Records showed the service shared information with relatives and alerted them to any concerns.

Staff felt there were good systems in place to ensure there was learning when accidents and incidents occurred. One staff member told us, “We will do an incident report on the system. They are reviewed and discussed and any changes brought up in the twice monthly meetings. Care plans would be changed if it were needed.”

Systems were in place to ensure concerns such as accidents and incidents were recorded and action taken to minimise the risk of them happening again. The recording system ensured that senior managers were also made aware of concerns. This enabled teams to check actions had been followed through before being signed off as completed.

People told us they enjoyed the time they spent at Mallow Crescent and looked forward to going. One person told us, “The staff understand.” People appeared comfortable in the service and at ease with the staff supporting them.

Staff told us they ensured a verbal handover of information took place, usually with families, prior to a person starting their stay and following their visit. One staff member told us, “Families are always interested in what their relative has been doing and we tell them about medicines, sleeping and what people have eaten as well.”

Professionals told us they had not received any concerns regarding the support provided. One professional told us, “The feedback we get is generally good.”

People received the support they required to transition into the service. Following assessment people were invited to visit prior to using the short breaks service. A number of visits could take place dependant on the person’s needs. The visits enabled staff to form a view regarding compatibility with other guests whilst helping people get used to a new environment. On each subsequent stay, staff would let relatives know if there were any changes to the person’s needs.

People told us they felt safe when spending time at Mallow Crescent. One person said, “I have made friends here. It feels safe.”

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. One staff member described the action they would take should they have concerns, “I would tell my manager and raise an incident report. I would involve any professionals involved and the persons parents as well as reporting to safeguarding. We would be open about any outcomes and measures we had put in place.”

We observed people appeared relaxed in the company of staff and approached staff with confidence when they required support. Information regarding safeguarding was available and displayed for staff to refer to.

Safeguarding processes were in place which ensured concerns were reported in line with requirements. Where safeguarding issues had been reported these were responded to and risks minimised. Staff received training in safeguarding processes and were aware of how to access refresher information.

We did not receive any concerns in relation to how people were supported to manage risks. However, our observations showed staff did not always have guidance to support them in responding to people’s needs.

Staff were able to describe the risks to people’s safety when speaking with them. They told us compiling risk assessments began at the assessment stage and continued as they learnt more about people during each visit.

We observed one person becoming anxious and making inappropriate comments. The staff member supporting them reproached them rather than listening to them. Staff did not give advanced warning of potentially inappropriate comments and gestures and there was no risk assessment of guidance for staff in relation to this. In other areas we observed staff supporting people in an encouraging way such as helping prepare food.

Although staff were able to tell us about the risks to people’s safety and wellbeing we found risk assessments were not always updated in a timely manner. This meant that changes in people’s circumstances and associated risks were not always clearly recorded. We looked at two people’s risk assessments and care plans which had not been updated for over a year. One person’s risk management plan contained limited guidance for staff on how to support them during times of anxiety. This was of particular concern due to the nature of a short breaks service and the large number of people registered to access Mallow Crescent. We found risks in relation to people’s health needs such as allergies and dietary requirements were well documented and known to staff.

People were supported in a safe environment. People were allocated their own room in line with their needs. Staff ensured the same room was available for when people stayed for people who this was important to. There were large communal areas where people could spend time together but also have quiet time if they chose.

Staff felt they had the support they required to ensure the environment was well maintained. One staff member told us, “We have a maintenance team who we can report problems to, and they organise checks of equipment.”

The service was maintained to a good standard. We observed specialist equipment was in good condition and used for its intended purpose.

Systems were in place to ensure the environment people stayed in was safe. Regular safety checks of equipment and fire systems were completed by staff and servicing was maintained by external professionals.

People were supported by sufficient skilled staff. One person told us they always had a staff member close if they needed them and could ask for their support.

Staff told us they felt there were sufficient staff deployed, and they were supported in their roles through training and supervision. One staff member told us they found the supervision process useful in ensuring they received support and that their own welfare was also a priority.

We observed staff were available to support people in line with their needs. People were able to go out when they wished. Staff were attentive and no one was seen to be waiting for support.

Systems were in place to ensure sufficient staff were available to support people safely. Rotas were prepared in advance and were flexible in line with the individual needs of the people staying at the service. There was a consistent staff team who appeared to know the people staying during our visit well.

Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment procedures included completing checks on staff work histories, obtaining references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and conducting face to face interviews. All staff underwent a comprehensive induction which included checks of their knowledge and competence where appropriate. There was a programme of planned training which staff told us supported them in their roles.

People were supported in a clean and homely environment and staff had access to the equipment they required to keep people safe from the risk of infection.

Staff told us they had the resources and time to ensure good infection prevention and control processes were followed. They confirmed they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons. One staff member told us, “We do the cleaning with the service users. We also have time when they have left or gone out to catch up on anything.”

We observed the service to be clean and hygienic. Staff had access to PPE which was safely disposed of after use.

Systems were in place to ensure people were supported in a clean and safe environment during their stay. Schedules were completed for the cleaning of communal areas and people were supported with household tasks as appropriate. Staff received training in infection prevention and control.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.