St Aidans

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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Records demonstrated incidents and accidents were being dealt with and there was evidence of lessons learned taking place. Incident records would benefit from more information about how lessons learned were being shared with the staff team however, we saw lessons learned was discussed as an ongoing item during team meetings.

Relatives were happy that their family member was safe at the service and staff knew people well. All staff knew what to do as a result of accidents or incidents. One said, “I would always report this to my manager or a senior member of staff. Depending on the nature of the incident I would call emergency services if necessary and I would ensure guests (people who used the service) and other staff are safe.”

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.

Relatives talked about the detailed assessment and transition process undertaken with people prior to them staying at the service. They said, “When [person] goes into stay, they (staff) call beforehand; and check in again afterwards to ask if [person] was happy with their stay” and, “[Person] did short transitions visits initially for an hour and slowly introduced longer visits.”

The service linked in with professionals to tailor support to people during their respite stay at St Aidans. One told us, “St Aidans have supported many of our service users and their families in times of well-deserved planned respite or times of crisis.”

Leaders had positive working relationships with professionals to ensure people received respite care which supported their individual needs. They told us whilst the input from all professionals would not be relevant in all circumstances they liaised with people’s GPs annually. This would ensure they were, ‘Up to date with regard to medicines and health needs and that if a person required a hospital admission they would send the “Hospital passport” with the person’. The management team told us and records confirmed they linked in with professionals to support transitions for people accessing the service.

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.

Safeguarding records included details of the concerns, investigations undertaken and a summary log to monitor these. Up to date policy and guidance was available to support investigations. Staff had undertaken relevant training and knew what to do if abuse was suspected. They said, “I would report to my line manager, supervisor, or the designated safeguarding lead (DSL). (I would) document all details, including dates, times, and specific observations, following my organisation's policy” and, “(I would) report concerns to the manager or senior staff, follow the safeguarding policy, write a clear report, follow the whistleblowing procedure and report to the safeguarding team if needed.”

All relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe at the service. One said, “Yes (Person is safe in the service). I have a very good relationship with all the staff, very open communication, if I feel something is not right.” People indicated to us that they were happy in St Aidans, and positive and engaging interactions were observed. Where a person discussed a concern about their stay with us the management team and senior staff discussed the circumstances of this as well as the actions they had taken including how to support the person at future stays.

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.

Environmental risk assessments in a number of areas were in place and up to date to ensure measures were in place to manage risks safely. We saw all areas of the environment were safe, equipment was stored safely and access to outside space were accessible to people. Staff ensured people’s safety was maintained.

Individual risk assessments had been developed to support individuals in managing safe risks. Staff linked in with relatives prior to the stay to check if people’s needs had changed and if other risks needed to be considered. Staff understood people’s needs and how to keep them safe. They told us, “Care plans and risk assessment identify risks to a person.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Fire safety checks were ongoing, a fire risk assessment had been completed, and personal emergency evacuation plans were updated when people visited for respite care. The property was purpose built and accessible to all people regardless of their mobility needs. Doors were secured safely and where people’s needs required, they were supported in the separate one-person accommodation at the service.

A range of servicing and checks had been completed on the environment and equipment; these were ongoing and being done regularly. However, some of these checks were basic and needed more information about what was being checked or any actions required as a result of these. The management team discussed that they were planning a review of governance systems to ensure these were more detailed and robust in their content. Servicing and checks had been undertaken such as gas safety, fire safety and legionella. All relatives were happy with the environment and people’s safety. They told us, “It is clean and well maintained and in summer they (people) can sit out in the garden” and, “They are always on top of things (in the environment).”

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. Relevant checks and inductions had been undertaken with new staff commencing in post. Supervision and observed competency checks on staff were undertaken.

A wide range of training had been completed by the staff team. None of the relatives or professionals raised any concerns about the knowledge and skills of the staff team. They said, “In recent years turnover has become better; there were a lot of new faces, but some also stayed over the years, there has been quite a lot of young faces coming through now which is nice” and, “(Staffing has) never been a problem, [person] is happy to go and service does provide what [person] needs.”

Duty rotas were being completed. The registered manager told us they flexed the staffing numbers according to the amount of people they supported in the service. We saw sufficient numbers of staff undertaking duties during our visits.

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.

All areas were clean and tidy and regular cleaning was ongoing. Records were being completed which demonstrated cleaning checks and audits were taking place. Whilst these demonstrated checks were undertaken they would benefit from more detail about what was being reviewed, the findings from the audit and the actions required; including follow up by the management. The management team shared details of an infection prevention and control (IPC) audit that had been completed by the local authority, but the full audit was not shared by them.

Staff knew how to protect people from infection; they had completed training and there was up to date policies and guidance available to support good IPC practices. Staff told us outbreaks were managed safely and there was enough supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), and we saw PPE being used appropriately by staff during our visit. One said, “I have access to all PPE, gloves, masks, aprons, hand washing facilities.” No concerns were raised by relatives in relation to the cleanliness in the service. One said, “Yes (the service is clean) always seems to be.”

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 being managed safely. Information policy and guidance was in place to support safe administration. Medicines records had been completed and contained relevant information to support their administration, and medicines were being stored safely with the relevant safety checks undertaken. Staff told us they linked in with relatives and the GP to ensure they had up to date information about people’s medication when they had a break in the service.

Staff understood STOMP (Stopping over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people) is a national NHS England work programme to stop the inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic medications, an identified priority in the NHS Long Term Plan.) and how this impacted on people. We discussed that as the service supported people on a short-term respite basis they would only be invited to take part in medicines reviews and monitoring if invited by relevant professionals. Staff had undertaken relevant training and competency checks were being undertaken. None of the relatives raised any safety concerns. Comments included, “They have a procedure to follow for booking in (medicines it is) very important to them to know what is coming in” and, “A lot of red tape around prescriptions (it) can get frustrating but they have their policy and they abide by.”