Advance Healthcare- Trinity Apartments

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

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 the rating has remained good.

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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff understood how to report and record incidents, which were investigated and regularly reviewed by management to identify trends and prevent recurrence. Lessons learned were shared with people, families, and staff through meetings, one-to-ones, and memos. One staff member said, “Everything that happens, safety, negligence, complaints are discussed for improvements.”

Effective oversight systems were in place, with incidents monitored by the registered manager, senior management, and the head office quality team.

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 ensured coordinated care through effective communication and information sharing. Pre-admission assessments were completed with people, relatives, and professionals to capture individual health, communication, mobility, risks, preferences, and life history. This person-centred information informed care plans, which were shared with staff through electronic records and handovers.

Systems were in place to support smooth transitions and continuity of care, ensuring people received consistent support in line with their needs. For example, hospital passports were used to share key information and maintain continuity when people were admitted to hospital.

The provider 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 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 quickly and appropriately.

People told us they felt safe at the service. One person said, “I feel safe and I know it gave my family peace of mind. I’ve got a safe environment. I didn’t know how unsafe I felt until I moved in. I haven’t felt that for a very long time.” Another person said, “What is the most important thing is feeling safe, which I never felt living on my own.” Safeguarding concerns were appropriately raised and shared with relevant authorities.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding. They recognised signs of abuse and knew how to report concerns and take appropriate action. Staff were also aware of escalation processes, including contacting external bodies such as the local authority or the Care Quality Commission (CQC) when required.

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 service promoted positive risk-taking, enabling people to maintain independence while ensuring risks were safely managed. Risk assessments identified potential concerns and were supported by appropriate staff input to reduce the risks.

People were involved in managing risks in daily activities and community participation. One person said, “I feel very confident they recognise when something is wrong. They will always check on me.”

Staff understood their responsibilities for managing and escalating risks. Systems were in place to record refusals, which were clearly documented and shared during handovers.

We did not look at monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for safe environments.

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.

People and relatives were positive about staffing levels and staff skills. One person said, “Staff levels hasn’t affected me, they have adequate staff.” Robust recruitment processes were followed to ensure all required checks were completed before staff started work.

Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training to support people safely and effectively. One staff member said, “Induction was good, sessions were face to face and helpful which help me to feel confident.” The provider also completed six-weekly wellbeing checks and annual appraisals with staff.

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 had adequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) and followed safe usage and disposal procedures. People and relatives confirmed staff supported them to maintain a clean environment.

The provider gathered feedback from people and carried out regular audits to monitor quality and safety, using the findings to make improvement.

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.

Medicines were well managed, with clear guidance and photo identification detailing purpose, dosage, and when to administer. Staff were confident in safely administering and recording PRN (as required) medicines, including when these were declined.

Staff received appropriate training and support, and the provider maintained oversight through an electronic system. Medication stock checks were completed at each delivery, with excess returned. Reviews took place regularly, every 8 weeks for those self-managing and every 4–6 weeks for those requiring support.

Staff competency was regularly assessed, and audits were completed to identify improvements. Lessons learned were shared through team meetings and one-to-one discussions.