The Bungalow

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

People received safe care which met their needs and respected their rights.

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.

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

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse by staff who had the knowledge and understanding of the provider's safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff had received relevant training in recognising and reporting abuse. They were confident any issues raised with the registered manager would be investigated to make sure people were protected.

Staff told us that the registered manager is very good at addressing any safeguarding concerns and that anything would be dealt with and not swept away. One staff member said that they were 100% sure abuse would be dealt with and they would be kept up to date.

People were not able to verbally tell us if they felt safe in the service, however during the site visit we observed they looked relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff. People’s relatives told us their loved ones were safe. People’s human rights were being respected. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw staff supported people to make as many of their own decisions as possible. Staff knew about people’s capacity to make decisions through verbal or non-verbal means, and this was documented. Relatives were consulted when best interest decisions were needed. One relative told us; “We feel like [person] is very comfortable and well looked after and everyone’s very professional we always feel involved with what’s going on."

Risks to people had been assessed and actions needed to mitigate risk were available for staff to refer to. Staff were aware of people's risks and the support they needed to remain safe. Changes in people's risks were promptly identified and referrals to health care professionals were made in a timely manner.

We observed people being supported safely. For example, we saw people who required modified diets being supported by staff in accordance with their risk management plan.

People were supported to take positive risks. One relative told us, "[Registered manager] is very hot on risk management, she’s very aware, I’ve seen her implementing it, everything is very carefully risk managed without restricting."

One staff member told us; “We always follow risk assessments.” Staff were able to explain to us, for example how they support people at high risk of falls to enable them so still be independent and remain safe at the same time. Staff were able to describe to us how they support people to eat safely.

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

People were not able to verbally tell us about staffing, however we observed that enough staff who knew people well were present in the service. One relative told us; "They’re amazing, they’re wonderful can’t praise them highly enough. [Registered manager] is just simply the best and only employs people with the right ethos, I can’t tell you what difference that makes... I’m so grateful we found it really."

The provider safely recruited staff following pre-employment checks to ensure people were cared for by suitable staff. Staff received the support, supervision and training they needed to meet people's needs.

During the site visit we observed there were adequate staffing levels who knew people well to meet their needs and to keep them safe.

People were supported by a consistent staff team which had been safely recruited. Staff were happy in their roles and felt well supported. They told us they received appropriate training and supervision.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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