Sahara Parkside

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 we rated this as requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there were limited assurances about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

There was a lack of training for staff in supporting people to manage their aggression. Some peoples risk assessment and management plans had not been regularly updated. This was a breach of Regulation 12, Safe care and treatment.

This service scored 62 (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. The provider raised concerns about safety, investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

A professional connected to the service told us there had been a positive change with the deputy manager being in charge. They added, “They [deputy manager] seems to be tuned in to the needs of our clients and respond accordingly. When something went wrong, they initiated a safeguarding meeting, and we worked jointly to resolve the issue.”

One relative had given us feedback prior to our assessment regarding how as required (PRN) medicines were being managed. We discussed this with the provider during our assessment. The provider told us this issue had been addressed, and they had learnt as a result and liaised with the family member regarding this matter.

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 assessed people’s needs prior to moving into the service taking into consideration the needs of the person as well as the things that were important to them. Using this process allowed the service to determine how much support each person needed to keep them safe and allow time for people to be supported to do what they wanted to do. Information from a range of sources, including from other professionals and families, helped to provide a holistic picture of the needs of a person. The deputy manager told us how they put emphasis on assessing people carefully to ensure that people are compatible and safe living together in the flats they occupied.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff told us they felt confident that they knew how to identify concerns and raise a safeguarding alert with their deputy manager if required.

Staff were able to describe systems and processes they would use for reporting a safeguarding concern. They told us, “We would report to a senior member of staff or our deputy manager and fill out an incident report. If necessary, we would call the emergency services, and we may also report things to social services or the Care Quality Commission.”

A family member we spoke to told us they felt their relative was safe. They said, “[Person] is safe in their home and is also kept safe when they go out.”

The provider did not work well to manage people’s risks. We saw some plans relating to people’s safety that were out of date. We discussed this with the provider at the time of the inspection, they acknowledged this and during our assessment and updated the information.

The plans we saw were person centred, detailing how a person should be kept safe and what was important to them. The plans were detailed and written in different formats making them easier for staff to follow in difficult situations but did not effectively reflect people’s support needs.

The environment was safe and well maintained. The provider shared their maintenance schedule with us with actions largely met. On both visits we saw the service’s maintenance person on site attending to repairs. The provider had up to date environmental risk assessments in place in relation to such things as fire and mechanical equipment they used to support people such as hoists. Each flat had separate storage for cleaning materials, ensuring hazardous chemicals were safely stored. The flats and all communal areas were well maintained and decorated to a high standard incorporating people’s wishes. The provider carried out routine safety checks on the building and equipment.

The building was fully accessible with a lift to access each floor. Flats were designed with enough space for a person requiring a wheelchair. Each bedroom had an en-suite shower room facility and areas within each flat were equipped with alarms so help could be sought if needed.

The provider did not always ensure staff received effective support. We noted there had been incidents where staff had been assaulted by people living in the service. The provider told us the person responsible for delivering training to manage aggression was no longer qualified to do so which meant not all staff had up to date training. This posed a risk to staff and people living in the service. The provider subsequently told us they would arrange to access this training from other parts of their organisation, to ensure staff were appropriately trained.

One health and social work professional told us the provider must ensure staff are equipped with the right skills and the importance of working together to avoid crisis situations.

The provider recruited staff in line with legal requirements, carrying out all necessary checks to ensure the safety of people living in the service. There was enough staff working in the service to meet people’s basic care needs. The provider utilised other staff across each day to enable people to be able to do the things they wanted to do such as learning new skills and pursuing interests. Staff received regular supervision to provide them the guidance they needed to do their jobs effectively. Each flat had their own dedicated staff member at nighttime and were able to call on each other if the need arose.

As part of our assessment, we looked at staff rota’s the provider sent us. In some cases, we saw staff worked continuously without having regular days off which meant they were working an excessive number of hours. We were concerned about the safety and welfare of the people living in the service and the staff’s ability to carry out their duties safely.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk the spread of any infections. The provider had an infection control policy for staff to follow and carried out regular infection control audits that ensured people were safe. All flats and communal areas were cleaned to a good standard. Each flat had its own laundry facilities which minimised the risk of infection and cross contamination spreading across the rest of the flats within the building.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs. The service worked with health professionals to regularly review people’s medicines. The provider had safe systems in place and each person had their medicines stored separately in an appropriate cabinet within their own flats.

Staff received regular training to understand about safe medicines management and were able to describe the steps required if a person was having difficulty or refusing their medication.

The provider followed the principles of STOMP (stopping the overuse of medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people), which is guidance related to stopping the overuse of medicines, particularly for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Protocols for people’s as and when required medicines such as pain relief, were clearly written and easy for staff to follow. Protocols had been agreed and reviewed by the appropriate medical professionals.