Strafford House

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 questiongood. At thisassessmentthe rating hasremainedgood. 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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty.

Staff took concerns about safety seriously and ensured any incidents were investigated and reported appropriately. Lessons were learned and used to strengthen and embed good practice. Staff also shared what worked well when supporting people, helping colleagues learn from positive experiences and provide the best possible care. Learning was shared in various ways, including daily handovers and regular staff meetings.

Staff told us the registered manager and provider regularly shared best practice guidance and audit findings, which helped maintain a strong learning culture. The registered manager promoted continuous improvement through open reflection and learning.

Systems were in place to gather and analyse information from a range of sources, including accidents and incidents. Findings were used to drive improvements, and lessons learned were shared with all staff to ensure changes were understood, embedded, and sustained.

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.

Staff worked with a range of health and social care professionals ensuring people received joined up care and support. Referrals were made in response to people’s changing needs to both health and social care agencies in a timely and effective way. 

The manager worked with others to solve problems and make improvements. Regular contact was maintained with local authority social workers, GPs, and other professionals. Staff said they could reach health professionals when needed.

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, avoidableharmand neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Safeguarding systems wereestablishedand understood.Staff had undertaken training on safeguarding and understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and harm.Staffwere able to describe how to recognise and respond to signs of abuse,demonstratingawareness of their responsibilities.

Staff had undertaken training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). However, some staff found it difficult to respond to questions toevidencetheir knowledge and understanding about the MCA and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff were aware that all care interactions required the consent of theperson andwere aware some people hadDoLSauthorisations in place.

The manager understood their responsibilities to report any concerns promptly to the relevant external agencies.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks througha holistic approach.

Staff delivered care that met people’s needs in a safe and supportive way. Risks associated with individuals’ care and treatment needs had been assessed and were subject to regular review. Care planscontaineddetailed risk assessments with corresponding guidance, ensuring staff understood the actionsrequiredto reduce the risk of harm.For example, there were detailed guidance on how to support people who were at risk of choking or people who may display distressed behaviours.

There was a collaborative approach with people being involved in decisions where risks had beenidentified, which included supporting a positiverisk-takingapproach.Staff had undertaking training in keeping people safe, which included the use of equipment and safe moving and handling practices.

The providertook action to dealwith potential risks in people’s home environments.

The environment was decorated according to people’s preferences and looked homely.The robust maintenance schedule, which ensured required environmental checks were all completed had been covered by other experienced maintenance staff employed by the provider.

We saw there had been regular checks to ensure the home was safein the event ofa fire. People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans(PEEPS)in place, specific to their identified needs. Records confirmed equipment safety and visual checks of the environment were completed routinely and any reported repairs were dealt with promptly.

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.

Staff were recruited safely and had all the required pre-employment checks carried out before starting work. We observed there were enough staff available to support people safely on both days of our site visit.

New staff received an induction when they started work which provided them with the training needed. Staff told us this was regularly refreshed. Training was provided in a range of areas including specialist training for behaviour support. Staff were deployed effectively to ensure people received safe care. Records showed that staff continued to receive training to perform their roles effectively. Staff also received regular support through supervisions and appraisals.

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.

The home was predominantly clean and tidy. We identified two areas in need of further cleaning, and the registered manager took immediate action to address this. Staff followed safe infection prevention practices and used personal protective equipment to help prevent the spread of infections. Staff had completed food safety training and followed these principles when preparing meals for people.

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

Medicines were stored safely with regular checks on storage temperatures. Staff had training on medicines administration, and their competence was checked by senior staff. People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were attentive to people’s needs and offered support and reassurance when administering medicines.

The provider was signed up to STOMP (Stopping the Over Medication of People with learning disabilities). This is a national project to try and reduce the use of psychotropic medicines for people with learning disabilities. This type of medicines was being monitored by management and the provider to reduce their use wherever possible.

If people had ‘as required’ medicines, there were protocols available to guide staff in when to administer. However, some records lacked detail to show if the medicine had been effective. Managers had already identified this and were in the process of communicating a message to staff so action could be taken. Medicines administration records were accurate and complete. The provider followed guidance for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines. Regular audits were completed to ensure medicines were safely administered.