Raven Support Limited

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 78 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. There were processes in place to record and learn from accidents and incidents.

Staff understood how to report incidents and told us learning was shared via communication systems and reminders. One staff member told us, “The team leaders follow things up and put things in place to prevent them from happening, they add things to the care plan.” Some staff told us they would benefit from more face to face meetings to discuss and share learning. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us face to face meetings were on their action plan and they had plans to arrange them. The registered manager gave examples of how they shared learning from incidents with staff.

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.

The registered manager told us they were extremely proud of the outcomes achieved through the transitional work with people being discharged from long-stay psychiatric wards back into the community. They worked closely and collaboratively with inpatient mental health teams and community mental health services to facilitate safe, planned, and person-centred discharges. Staff completed ‘in reach’ planning where they worked with people in the hospital setting to get to know them. The registered manager told us people were involved at every stage of the process, including discharge planning, risk assessments, safety planning, and transition meetings. The registered manager emphasised their approach ensured transparency, dignity, and empowerment. The registered manager told us it was, “Key to have the person involved, planning at their pace.”

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to fully understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They had a clear focus on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. They always shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People told us they felt with the staff supporting them. One person told us, “I feel completely safe with staff.” Another person commented, “I do feel safe yes.” Relatives also commented positively about their family members safety. Comments from relatives included, “[Name of person] is very safe, they [staff] keep them grounded. If it wasn’t for the staff, I don’t know where they [person] would be now” and “[Name of person] is absolutely safe.”

Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse and were confident in safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. During the assessment we received information relating to how a safeguarding concern was responded to, we reviewed information and concluded the safeguarding was managed appropriately. Safeguarding concerns were reported appropriately and managed in partnership with external agencies.

Professionals commented positively about how the registered manager responded to any safeguarding concerns. One professional told us, “[Name of registered manager] takes concerns seriously and ensures that risk issues are communicated promptly.” Another professional commented, “[Name of registered manager] has a good understanding of safeguarding and during an enquiry evidenced strong joint working skills. [Name of registered manager] was flexible with their time, and timely in their responses. They evidenced good knowledge of the individual situation and from my observation feedback from [name of person], [Name of registered manager] was a trusted professional and who [name of person] viewed as a strong advocate for their rights.”

The service always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were fully involved in decisions about their care and how risks were managed. One person told us, “They always ask me what I want and how I want things done.” People told us staff supported them to manage risks well. One person told us since being supported by the service they had not had a serious incident in 2 years. The persons relative told us, “It’s fantastic.”

Staff supported positive risk taking and worked with people to reduce incidents while promoting independence. Professionals told us the service managed risks to people well. One professional told us about a person who presented periods of heightened risk to themselves. The professional said, “Raven Support demonstrates a strong understanding of [name of persons] presentation and associated risks. Risk management is handled appropriately, with staff taking a calm, measured approach rather than reacting in a way that could escalate situations. Importantly, risk issues are escalated and reported promptly and appropriately.” They told us one of the strengths of the service was their ability to manage risk with the promotion of the persons autonomy. They told us this was critical to the person and contributed to them remaining living in the community and not needing further hospital admission.

Risk assessments were personalised and reflected people’s views, preferences and capacity. Risk assessments covered areas such as self harm, mental health deterioration, mobility, lone working and environmental risks, with clear guidance for staff on how to reduce risks while promoting independence. People were actively involved in assessments and reviews. The registered manager knew people well and closely monitored people’s daily records to identify any deterioration in their mental health which enabled them to take prompt action. People were aware of who the registered manager was and were able to contact them to raise and discuss concerns. There were ongoing discussions between people and staff when potential risks arose, this enabled any risks to be discussed and mitigated.

The provider had systems in place to maintain safe environments. Environmental risk assessments were completed and reviewed, including risks related to people’s homes and community settings. Staff understood environmental risks and took action to reduce hazards, supporting people to live safely in their own homes and when accessing the community.

The service 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.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. People and relatives told us staff were consistent, arrived on time and informed them if there were unexpected delays. One person told us, “They always let me know if they are going to be late, if they are running early, they will ask permission if they can come early, generally they are on time.” One person told us they did not always get their support hours at the time they were allocated. The person told us these were hours for social activities, they confirmed their hours for personal care were always delivered at the allocated time. The registered manager told us this was occasionally due to staff sickness and these hours were rearranged for another time and always delivered.

Staff told us shifts were usually covered, for example when staff were sick. One staff member told us, “On the whole yes, we usually have enough staff to cover shifts safely. However, when people are off sick it does get tight, and office staff sometimes have to come out on visits.”

Recruitment processes ensured staff were employed safely, and staff received training relevant to their roles.

Some staff told us they would benefit from more face‑to‑face training, and not all staff felt they had training opportunities to support their learning. The registered manager told us their team leader had recently successfully gained a qualification in training; this would enable them to deliver more face-to-face training to staff. The registered manager also had a plan to add more face-to-face mental health and positive behaviour support training.

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 followed infection prevention and control practices to reduce the risk of infection. Staff received infection prevention and control training and told us they had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff wearing PPE when required.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were managed safely. People were involved in their medicines planning. Where people managed their own medicines, this was clearly documented and supported in line with their wishes and assessed risks. Where people required medicines ‘as required’ (PRN) there was guidance available in people’s care plans for when these medicines should be administered. Medicines Administration Records (MARs) were completed when medicines were administered. Care plans detailed any medicines risks, storage arrangements and how people took their medicines. The registered manager told us they had implemented counting of people’s medicines after each administration to aid in the management and investigation of any medicine’s errors.

Staff received medicines training and had their competency assessed. There were systems to monitor medicines practice.