Whitemoor 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered 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.

Staff demonstrated a robust understanding of actions they needed to take in response to a safety event. Records showed the registered manager analysed safety events and reviewed these with families. Any learning or changes in approach was effectively shared with staff. This reduced the risk of similar safety events occurring in the future.

A relative told us, “Whenever there has been an incident, someone from the home will get in touch with me and we will discuss what has happened and see if anything needs to be changed as a result of what has happened.”

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 service had recently successfully supported people to move into the service. The transitions were individualised, used a person led approach and were completed at the persons’ pace, plans were reviewed and adjusted throughout the process to support positive outcomes. The service developed a relationship with the person, fully involved them and their family in any decisions. The service took time to get to know the person and what really mattered to them. This helped the person settle into their new home and supported their emotional wellbeing.

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 they felt safe and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the types and signs of abuse.

The service investigated and shared concerns appropriately and reported to the relevant agencies. Where people were deprived of their liberty, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were made to legally authorise restrictions placed on people to keep them safe.

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 understood how to keep people safe. Risk assessments were clear, detailed and reviewed often. People were fully involved with developing these. For example, a person who had diabetes had clear guidelines in place, that detailed foods to avoid and the action to take if they showed signs of becoming unwell.

People were supported to take positive risks. For example, a person who had long expressed a wish to live more independently was helped to work towards their goal through small, manageable steps. The person and their key worker held weekly meetings to track progress and carefully manage potential risks. Over time the person developed essential living skills and was in the process of finding supported living accommodation.

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

People were encouraged to take part in checking the safety of their home and the equipment they used. For individuals who felt anxious about fire alarms, tailored support was provided to build understanding and reduce fear. By involving them in alarm testing at home, 1 person successfully gained the confidence and ability to evacuate independently when the alarm sounded.

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 all told us they felt the training was good and gave them the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Staff received regular support, supervision meetings and yearly appraisals.

Staff were mostly recruited safely. However, staff conduct in all relevant roles had not always been obtained during the recruitment process. The risk to people was mitigated because the provider ensured new staff did not work alone until they were assured staff could work safely and effectively. Following our inspection the provider has updated their recruitment policy to ensure conduct is checked during the recruitment process in line with legislation”.

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.

People were supported to keep their homes clean and safe from infection. Staff used Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when needed, understood how to stop infections spreading and spot checks were completed regularly. People were encouraged to maintain their personal hygiene, and some people had developed their skills and could tell us how they stopped germs spreading and stayed 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 their medicines changed.

Staff received medicines training, and their competency was checked to ensure they could administer medicines safely. Staff supported and involved people to manage their medicines. Records showed people received their medicines as prescribed.

The registered manager told us, during people’s annual health reviews, Stopping Over Medication of People with a learning disability and/or autism (STOMP) plans were reviewed. This meant people’s medicines were reviewed to ensure psychotropic medicines were not inappropriately prescribed or overused. We saw evidence of people’s medicines being reduced or stopped. This meant people were less likely to be at risk of medical restraint.