Voyage (DCA) London East

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 69 (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 understood their responsibilities to raise and report safety events appropriately. There were clear processes in place for reporting and monitoring accidents and incidents. These were reviewed regularly to identify trends and patterns, with the aim of reducing risk and improving safety.

A culture of reflective practice was evident throughout the service. Learning from incidents was shared across the team, and staff were encouraged to reflect on their practice to improve outcomes for people.

People had opportunities to participate in debriefing sessions following incidents. These encouraged people to review what had happened and be part of planning future support strategies.

The provider worked collaboratively with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. Systems were in place to support smooth transitions between services when required. There were effective processes to ensure safety was routinely managed, monitored and communicated. For example, where people required additional support with epilepsy management or their mental health, care records were updated promptly and shared to ensure safe and consistent care.

Partnership working was actively promoted and encouraged to ensure people received coordinated care. Staff supported people to attend medical appointments and multidisciplinary meetings and helped them to understand the information discussed. This enabled people and their representatives to be involved in decisions about their health and wellbeing.

The provider worked with people, families and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding and knew how to raise concerns about people’s safety or wellbeing. A safeguarding policy was in place and accessible to all staff, providing clear guidance on how to manage concerns. People were also provided with information about keeping safe in accessible formats. During the inspection, we observed that people appeared comfortable approaching staff for support. Staff communicated respectfully and demonstrated positive, caring interactions with people.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. However, we received mixed feedback about how risks were managed in practice. Most feedback was positive, indicating that risks were managed well and in ways that enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Some feedback suggested risk management processes were not applied consistently, such as when a person attended a one-off event, or activity. We sought and received assurances from the provider about how this was being addressed.

Risk management plans were person-centred and considered factors such as individual staffing requirements, environmental risks, and how people’s behaviour or health conditions might affect their safety. Plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained proportionate, minimised restrictions, and supported positive outcomes. Safety decisions made in people’s best interests followed recognised guidance and legislation. This approach enabled people to live safely in their homes and participate in community events and activities safely and well.

People lived in environments that were safe. The provider had effective systems in place to detect and control potential risks within each supported living scheme. Staff received regular health and safety training and demonstrated a good understanding of how to keep people safe. Risk management processes were in place for emergency situations, including fire safety procedures and how to respond to unwelcome visitors.

Staff encouraged and assisted people to report faults or issues with their accommodation to their landlord, ensuring these were followed up appropriately. Equipment, facilities and technology were maintained and used effectively to support the delivery of safe care.

The provider did not always ensure staff were sufficiently skilled and knowledgeable to support people safely. Training records showed that some staff had not completed required courses, and some training was out of date. This included mandatory training and specialist areas relevant to people’s individual needs. The provider was actively addressing these shortfalls at the time of the inspection.

Staffing levels were safe and reflected the planned rota. We observed there were enough staff available to support people individually with daily living tasks and planned activities. Any gaps in the rota were covered by familiar staff, helping to maintain consistency and continuity of care.

Safe recruitment processes were followed. Appropriate employment checks were carried out to protect people from unsuitable staff, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and confirmation that overseas staff had the correct authorisation to work in the UK. Staff told us their induction was comprehensive and prepared them well for their roles. Mandatory training included the approved training in supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people, in line with the Oliver McGowan Code of Practice (2025).

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 received training on infection prevention and control (IPC). During the assessment we saw staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately and people’s homes were clean with furnishings and equipment in good order. The provider had an up-to-date infection control policy and undertook IPC audits and checks.

Medicines were managed safely and in line with people’s needs and preferences. For example, 1 person was able to tell us what medicine they were due, when they wanted to take it and which staff member they preferred to administer it. We saw this choice was respected in practice.

People had person-centred medicine plans, and staff received regular training, and competency checks to ensure safe practice. Staff knew when to give ‘as and when required’ (PRN) medicines and when to seek medical advice. National best practice guidance was followed including the principles of STOMP (stopping over-medication of people with a learning disability, autism, or both). People’s medicines were regularly reviewed by prescribers.

Medicines were stored and recorded safely. There was sufficient stock, clear PRN protocols, and accurate medicine administration records (MARs). Regular audits were carried out, and staff practice reflected the provider’s medicines policy.