Brandon Trust Supported Living - Hampshire

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 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.

Learning was shared with staff through team meetings, supervision, and updates to risk assessments and support plans. When concerns were identified, the provider adjusted control measures and staff guidance. One staff member said, “I feel confident raising concerns or suggesting improvements. I can speak to my manager or bring things up in supervision. As a team leader, I join monthly meetings with other team leaders where we share good practice.”

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 provider had effective systems to manage risks during referrals, admissions, and transitions. Risk assessments were completed before people moved into the service and reviewed after hospital admissions, changes in health needs, or updated clinical guidance. This meant people’s care needs were accurately recorded.

Support plans included clear protocols for managing choking risks and responding to seizures, with relevant information shared with professionals to ensure continuity of care. These processes supported safe transitions and reduced the risk of avoidable harm.

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.

The service had effective safeguarding arrangements to protect people in supported accommodation. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to raise concerns, including out of hours. The provider recognised risks specific to supported living and ensured all allegations were recorded, investigated, and monitored for patterns or trends. This approach helped safeguard people while also protecting staff. A relative said, “This is the best I have seen her. They keep her safe by following the correct procedures. There is always a member of staff with her. They look after her as a parent would a child.

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.

People were actively involved in managing their own risks. Information was provided in accessible formats, such as easy-read materials, pictures, and visual prompts to support understanding of choking and seizure risks. Risk management strategies were discussed with individuals and, where appropriate, their families or representatives. The provider promoted positive risk‑taking to build independence while ensuring appropriate safeguards were in place. A relative said, “We are involved in the care planning process.”

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

The provider assessed and managed risks within people’s own flats or shared supported living accommodation. Environmental risk assessments were completed prior to placement and reviewed regularly or when people’s needs changed.

Adjustments were made to reduce risks associated with epilepsy and choking, such as guidance on safe food preparation. Staff had clear instructions on responding to emergencies within individual’s homes, supporting safe care delivery in a supported living setting.

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.

Staffing was reviewed regularly and adjusted as risks changed. Staff received appropriate training, covering epilepsy, seizure management, choking response, safeguarding, positive behaviour support and mandatory training required on learning disabilities and autism. Staff competency monitored through supervision, observation, and refresher training.

Although some relatives noted the use of agency staff, overall staffing levels were appropriate. One relative said, “There are four people living there. Last Christmas the provider put extra staff on shift as one person had no family, and they asked if her daughter wanted to stay.”

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 used Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) appropriately. PPE was readily available and staff were trained in its correct use and disposal. Cleaning schedules were in place and monitored to ensure people’s homes remained clean and safe.

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.

The provider followed STOMP (Stopping Over‑Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or Both) and worked closely with healthcare professionals to ensure psychotropic medicines were used appropriately and reviewed regularly. Support plans prioritised non‑pharmacological approaches and reducing unnecessary medication.

Medicine effectiveness was monitored through regular reviews and close liaison with health professionals. Any changes in seizure activity or health status were recorded and acted upon promptly, supporting safe, responsive, and person‑centred medicines management.