MSA Supported 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There were not always robust systems in place to support a positive learning culture. There were regular team meetings to review accidents and incidents, and incidents were recorded. However, learning actions were not identified in documentation. The provider has put in place improvements on their learning culture.

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 worked well with other professionals to establish safe systems of care, for example, with nurses and the local authority. Professionals told us the provider had safe systems of care in place. One professional told us, "The staff and myself developed a trusted working relationship and would keep me informed and we had regular meetings and reviews to resolve or evidence progress and good practice."

There was relevant documentation in place to support transition between services, such as hospital passports, and the provider had a robust pre assessment process.

The provider did not always work with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff did not always concentrate on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect as there was a lack of effective documentation. The provider did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately.

There were robust systems in place to manage safeguarding concerns. There was a safeguarding policy in place and staff had completed relevant training. The provider recorded safeguarding concerns and liaised appropriately with relevant professionals, for example, the local authority. However, safeguarding documentation which tracked concerns, required more detailed information, for example actions taken and any identified learning. The provider has started to respond to this feedback.

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.

The provider appropriately involved professionals to manage risk, for example, housing services, and kept records of visits and communication with them. Professionals advised the service involved them appropriately. One professional told us, "The service would contact me directly if it was relating to [person’s] care, both improvement and progress, deterioration in their presentation." People we spoke with told us the provider involves professionals to manage risk appropriately.

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

The provider had robust systems in place to ensure the environment was safe. For example, there were comprehensive environmental and fire safety checks completed.

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.

There were robust systems and processes in place to support safe staffing. For example, robust recruitment processes. There was a staffing dependency tool in place. Staff had received training relevant to their role and had completed regular supervision and appraisal. One staff member told us, "I have regular supervisions and meetings with my [registered] manager. Here I can discuss any personal issues, concerns or training needs." We received mixed feedback from people regarding staff practices in the service. One person told us, "I think they [staff] need more training on autism”. Further training on autism would [to help] staff better plan activities or interventions]. Staff had completed this training and competencies were checked, however the provider said they would review 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.

There were robust processes in place to support safe infection, prevention and control (IPC). There was an IPC policy in place and during site visits, we observed there to be enough personal protective equipment (PPE) available to staff. There were cleaning schedules in place, and we observed the environment to be clean and tidy. People we spoke with agreed staff used appropriate PPE and the environment was clean.

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.

There were robust systems in place to support safe medication management. There was a medication policy in place and staff had received appropriate medication training. Medication audits and competencies were completed regularly by leaders. Medication administration records (MARs) were completed with no gaps, medication care plans were accurate and in place, and "as and when required" (PRN) medication protocols were available. However, we gave feedback that some PRN protocols required more detail. This was immediately rectified by the provider.