Kind2U 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 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 service 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.

There were systems in place to investigate, learn and make improvements from accidents, incidents and complaints. Learning was discussed with staff who had a good understanding of how to provide safe appropriate support. The person using the service was supported to reflect on situations which placed them at risk of harm to themselves or others. Staff helped them to find appropriate ways to express their feelings.

Staff liaised with external professionals to create support plans and learn from incidents. This made sure there was a consistent approach based on best practice.

The provider worked with the person 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.

Staff created easy to access guides about the person’s health and communication needs. These were shared with other healthcare professionals when the person needed to access external support.

The service 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 the person’s life while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The person and their relative told us they felt safe. The person said, “Yeah [I’m safe] having the staff here, and we lock the doors and stuff. I know them [staff].” Their relative said, “[The person] is safe yes. [The person] has 24/7 coverage at the moment from the service so yes, I’m happy [person] is safe.”

The service raised safeguarding concerns appropriately and arranged meetings with professionals to discuss concerns. Notifications were submitted to the Care Quality Commission to notify us of incidents.

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

A risk management system was in place and risk assessments were held in the care plan. These were person centred and provided staff with guidance on how to manage the risk. For example, for one specific risk. Staff were guided to ‘maintain a supportive environment and establish quiet areas where [person] can go to allow them to calm and recharge.’

Staff we spoke with were aware of the person’s needs.

Records confirmed risks were regularly reviewed and involved the person and their relative.

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

Effective infection control procedures were in place and staff were trained in infection control. The person’s relative confirmed the home was clean and secure. Environmental risk assessments were in place.

The service 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 the person’s individual needs.

Staff told us they felt staffing levels were appropriate to meet the person’s needs. Staffing levels were designed to ensure the person was supported to undertake a range of individual activities at home and in the community.

The service had effective recruitment systems in place. Staff completed induction and received relevant training to ensure they had the skills and competencies to carry out safe care. Staff had access to support through supervision and appraisals.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff had been trained in infection control and told us they had adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) which they used appropriately.

The person’s relative told us the house was, “Clean and well maintained.”

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met the person’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved the person in planning, including when changes happened.

The person received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Staff undertook training to understand how to manage medicines safely. Staff worked with prescribers and other professionals to monitor people’s medicines and make sure these were right for them. Records relating to medicines were clear, accurate and up to date. Managers carried out audits to make sure medicines were well managed and checked staff competency to administer medicine ensuring they were safe to do so.

We asked the person’s relative if they had any concerns relating to medicines. They said, “No, it is kept separate in the staff area and it’s locked away.”