ivolve Suffolk Supported Living

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 culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and reviewed by the management team to ensure actions were implemented. We looked at several incidents and found that the provider had reviewed what had happened and provided support to people involved.

The management shared learning with staff from incidents, accidents and safeguarding so that the service could continually improve and develop positive outcomes for people. Information was shared with staff through informal discussions, supervisions and staff meetings.

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.

A relative told us, “I feel that as long as it’s the staff who know her then [my relative] is very safe because they know all of their idiosyncrasies.”

Transition planning was undertaken to ensure that people’s needs were considered and how to promote their wellbeing and safety. Staff told us that they had good access to care plans and were kept up to date with changes to people’s needs. Health passports were in place which helped to make sure other professionals knew and understood about people’s needs, particularly how they communicated and made choices.

The provider worked with people and 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 appropriately.

Staff told us that they had received training in safeguarding and would not hesitate to raise concerns and were confident that the provider would take appropriate action. We saw that where concerns had been raised referrals had been made to the local authority safeguarding team.

There was clear guidance for staff on how to support people without using any medicines or restrictions. The service did not use any physical restraint, but staff had undertaken training on strategies to defuse situations to reduce anxiety and stress.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk to people had been assessed and risk assessments had been put in place to help mitigate risks as far as possible. Risk assessments and management plans were person centred and showed how people could be supported in the least restrictive way. Risk assessments were in place for example for going out in the car and the management of health conditions such as epilepsy. They set out the steps that staff should take to keep the person safe. We identified some missing information on one of the risk assessments, but this was immediately addressed by the manager. The staff we spoke to were clear about the information in the risk assessment and the actions required of them.

Some people being supported become anxious and could potentially cause harm to others or themselves. The provider employed a specialist behavioral advisor to guide staff and formulate a positive care plan which set out what signs they should be aware of and strategies that staff should use both at the time of the incident and subsequently.

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

All the people currently being supported used the same landlord. Staff escalated maintenance issues on people’s behalf and put interim arrangements into place to ensure peoples safety and wellbeing. People had their own private rooms and communal spaces to relax. Risks relating to fire safety were assessed and staff carried out regular checks on the fire safety systems to ensure they were working effectively. The staff made sure equipment was regularly serviced and each building had an emergency folder containing personal evacuation plans which set out the steps to follow if an emergency evacuation was required. A relative raised concerns with us about the front door of one of the properties being left open and risks to people’s wellbeing. The provider told us that they would immediately review this and remind staff of their responsibilities.

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.

The provider deployed enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Staff told us they thought staffing levels were appropriate. People were assigned an individual key member of staff who oversaw the coordination of their care. People knew the staff well and had good relationships with them. There was some agency staff used but the manager told us that they tried where possible to use a consistent staff who knew the people using the service.

The provider worked with other professionals to assess people’s individual staffing needs. The staffing structure reflected these assessments. Some people needed individual staff support at home or two staff when out of their home. This was appropriately managed, and the manager made sure staff supporting people were matched to reflect people’s personalities and interests.

Pre-employment checks had been completed for staff before starting work. New staff received an induction, including shadowing experienced staff. Staff told us they received regular training, supervision and an annual appraisal.

The staff were able to take regular breaks. They worked well together to plan and meet people’s needs. Staff told us they felt well supported. They told us that they completed a comprehensive induction, had their skills and knowledge assessed before they completed tasks such as giving medicines.

Staff had received training in how to interact appropriately with people with a learning disability and autistic people, at a level appropriate to their role. Training was provided in other key areas but there were gaps in areas such as diabetes care. The provider agreed to address this.

Staff told us there was always someone to seek advice from out of hours and that there are always plenty of well-trained staff to support the service.

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 completed infection prevention and control training and told us they had access to supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to use when needed.We observed gloves and aprons were available and staff using PPE appropriately.

The staff followed schedules to help make sure the environments were clean and well maintained.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

One relative told us, “No concerns there with medication.” Another said, “They’re locked away and they will text me with any issues or questions.”

Staff had completed training in the safe management of medicines and their practice was observed on a regular basis to ensure that they were doing this safely. Staff kept accurate records of medicines they administered. We checked a sample of medicines and found that they were appropriately stored, and the amounts tallied with the records. Records showed that where anomalies were identified in recording these were escalated for investigation.

As and when required medicine plans were in place to guide staff when these were prescribed, such as for distress. These clearly set out the steps that staff should follow including providing pain relief and seeking management approval. People were supported to have regular reviews of medicines to ensure that they were not prescribed more medicine than necessary. This follows the good practice of STOMP an NHS England initiative to stop the overmedication of people with a learning disability and autistic people. Regular audits were undertaken to check that medicines were being administered safely.