Rise up Support for Living Ltd

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. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The registered manager told us they regularly reviewed events which had happened and where practice could change to improve safety and the quality of service. For example, they told us how staff raised concerns over a person being at risk of falling which included incidences of near misses. The registered manager told us how, together with the person, their family and the staff team, they sat down with all parties to talk about what happened, what could be learnt from it and what could change to mitigate the risk. They told us how their discussions and findings from such events were incorporated into their service improvement plans and how this helped their future learning and practices.

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 registered manager told us how they supported people with health related matters with them and at times working closely with their families.

The provider had a referrals process and told us how they were able to respond flexibly when required to implement care packages if requested to do so. The registered manager told us how they would carry out a thorough assessment in line with their detailed care plan to ensure a person’s needs and wishes we identified before working out a care package which would meet the needs of the individual. The providers referral processes they had in place meant they were able to assess and provide care and support promptly whilst working closely with other health professionals ensuring people received the care they needed.

Staff had received training aimed at meeting the needs of older people which meant they were prepared to be able to deliver care and support people needed. For example, staff were trained in areas associated with elderly care such as dementia care and management of pressure care.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners and staff to understand what being safe meant and the best way to achieve it. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free of abuse and avoidable harm.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to guide staff in identifying different types of abuse and the actions they must take to report it.

We saw that no safeguarding referrals had been made to date. The registered manager told us what they would need to report and knew who to report to and the timescales in which reporting was required to the different agencies they worked with.Staff told us they had received safeguarding training. They said they would tell their manager immediately if they had concerns. They told us, in an event where a person was at risk they would ensure the person’s safety first and then talk to all concerned including the person themselves, their family as well as their manager.

People and their families told us the provider delivered safe care. A family member told us they have never seen anything to cause them concern with regards to the way their loved one was supported. They added, “I often sit and observe the way staff are with [relative] and have no concerns. I feel confident that if I did, I could talk to the staff or manager at any time.”

The manager and staff had received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS) training.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. The provider had policies and procedures in place for staff to follow which detailed the types of risks people faced and actions staff should take to mitigate and report them. Staff provided care to people that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were well written, clearly detailing what the risk was, and the support required to mitigate it. highlighting the importance of managing the risk whilst maintaining the person’s independence. For example, we saw risk assessments for areas that included, meal preparation and safe eating and drinking and mobility risk assessments.

Staff knew what risks people encountered and what to do to mitigate them. A staff member told us how the layout of a person’s home had created hazards owing to the lack of space. They told us how they raised this and how discussions with the person helped to find a solution which had a positive impact.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, technology and facilities supported the delivery of safe care. Staff were trained in aspects of maintaining people’s safety around the home making sure such things as electrical appliances were safe for people to use and were switched off when not in use.

The provider carried out an initial risk assessment of people’s homes and the immediate area before commencing the care package. The registered manager told us through spot checking and talking to the staff they were able to ensure any safety concerns about the environment were addressed immediately. The provider kept records of maintenance issues raised by their staff and kept clear records of when they had been rectified.

Staff told us how they would report any defects with equipment and how any problems with equipment would be reported immediately to their manager and anyone else involved in their care such as their families.

Robust risk assessments were in place for the person receiving care as well as for the staff and the environment where care was delivered to ensure safety for all concerned.

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 had enough staff to support people and could call upon a pool of bank staff in the event of staff absences. Staff received regular supervision which gave them an opportunity to seek support and guidance and explore further training opportunities.

The provider had clear, robust recruitment procedures in place. This meant staff were recruited in line with current legislation which included for example, references from previous employers and criminal records checks.

Staff received a thorough induction and a lengthy shadowing period. Staff had completed their mandatory training including courses aimed at supporting older people such as dementia, moving and positioning and, falls prevention training.

Relatives we spoke with told us staff kept their loved ones safe. They told us they had no cause for concern and felt if problems occurred, they would be able to discuss it with the manager. They told us they felt able to leave their relative in the capable hand of the staff and get on with their lives without worrying about their loved one’s safety.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with people and their families, and other agencies as required. Staff worked alongside people and their families to keep the home environment clean by undertaking additional domestic tasks.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to protect staff and made sure they had adequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) in place to minimise risks of infections.

Staff were trained in managing infections and understood they needed to report any concerns if they arose.

The provider had systems in place to manage people’s medicines effectively and safely. These included policies and procedures to guide staff which met with the national institute for health and care excellence guidelines.

Recording and monitoring systems were in place which included ways in the provider accounted for administration and auditing processes to ensure safe practice.

The registered manager told us about their local knowledge of GP services and pharmacies and were in a position to liaise with these if the person or their family required them to do so.

Staff were trained in all aspects of medicine administration which meant they would be able to support the person with their medicines if required to do so.