Harbour Lights Community Support

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 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 listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People felt confident to raise safety concerns, should they need to do so, and that appropriate action would be taken by managers. Lessons learnt were shared at regular staff meetings and with individuals, where necessary.

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.

People, and their relatives where appropriate, told us they were involved from the very start of their package of care. They described a seamless transition to the service. Robust systems were in place to ensure, should people have to go to hospital, that relevant information was shared.

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.

Staff received appropriate training about the safeguarding process and how to spot the signs of abuse. People told us they felt very safe with the staff who supported them. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and ensured people’s rights were protected.

The provider always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Every aspect of people’s care and support was fully considered and discussed with people and their relatives. The provider worked creatively to engage other professionals to provide comprehensive risk assessments and ensure positive risk taking was managed and all risks were mitigated. For example, working with 1 person and their occupational therapist to establish the best vehicle and method of getting in and out of this to enable them to access the community. The provider listened to the views and suggestions of staff and relatives who knew people best. For example, making sure that 1 person’s routine, established over many years with their relative, was continued to make sure the person was safe. Their relative told us, “It’s great, because it has to be perfect for me. [Name] is safe, we’ve got such a lovely bond with them (staff).” Another person, who had been unable to leave their home for over a year, had been supported to using a step-by-step process to broaden their environment until they were able to access the community safely.

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

Staff ensured people’s home environments were safe. The provider ensured staff were guided to check equipment prior to use and leave people’s homes in a way best suited to their individual safety. For example, ensuring access routes were free from clutter and that required equipment was within people’s reach. One person told us, “They always make sure I’ve got everything to hand and making sure everything is as it should be.”

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. However, training records had not been appropriately updated.

Robust and safe recruitment processes were in place. This meant the provider ensured potential staff were safe to work with vulnerable people. Staff were fully supported throughout their induction process and received shadowing with a more experienced staff member until they felt confident to deliver care on their own. They received regular training and checks on their skills competencies. People told us they felt staff were well-trained and were confident about their skills to support them appropriately. Comments included, “They (staff) are specifically trained for [Name], [the registered manager] has made sure they are all trained up” and “They (staff) have training, it’s obvious because they are so knowledgeable.” However, we identified the provider had not undertaken robust enough checks to ensure some staff had provided their appropriate training certificates to support people with some specific conditions. This meant we could not be assured this training was in place. We discussed this with the provider who took immediate action to rectify this.

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 received appropriate training and had good access to adequate stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE). The provider undertook regular spot checks to ensure staff were following infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures. A staff member told us, “When I started a got a big bag of PPE and you can ask for more at any time. And I got a First Aid kit.”

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.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and received regular assessments on their competency to administer medicines. The provider had recently started to use an electronic care planning system, and we identified the need for better recording, for example, when staff administered pain relief patches or topical creams. The provider took immediate action to ensure this was in place.