Autism Care Community Services (Lincolnshire)

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 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.

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 told us being supported by staff at the service made them feel safe. One person said, “I feel safe with [staff], we talk about staying safe.” A relative told us, “Yes, my [loved one] is very safe indeed.”

Processes were in place to identify, report and investigate any concerns for people’s safety. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of these processes and received training and support to ensure their knowledge remained up to date.

Some people using the service were subject a Community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (c-DoLS). Community DoLS are legal authorisations for depriving a person of their liberty in supported living or other community settings. The provider fulfilled their responsibilities in line with relevant requirements.

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.

Staff had a good understanding of the risks identified for people. Regularly reviewed support plans and risk assessments were in place. These guided staff about how to minimise risks to keep people safe, for example, with needs such as epilepsy and mobility. Staff told us they were kept up to date with any changes to people’s support plans. Plans also guided staff about how to support people who may experience distress. One person said, “If I get [angry] [staff] help me relax.” A relative told us, “Staff are aware of risks and work on reducing them as much as possible.”

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

The provider 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.

People benefitted from the consistency of having core staff teams in place. This meant they were able to develop trusting and positive relationships with staff. A person told us, “I love [staff], they help me, we talk a lot.” We found that new staff members were introduced to people in a planned way so they could get to know how people liked their support to be provided.

Staff told us they had a wide range of learning and development opportunities. One staff member spoke about starting a nationally recognised care qualification. Other staff said the training provided for them meant they could support people well. The registered manager had mapped people’s needs directly to the skills required by staff, which ensured training was tailored to the specific support each person required. Staff also told us they received regular supervision and support, which helped them reflect on their practice and maintain the skills they needed for their role.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were recruited safely and were suitable to work with people using the service. Recruitment processes included a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, identity check and previous employment checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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.