Pathways to Independance

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 the rating has remained 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.

When incidents or medicines errors happened, staff sought medical advice where needed, investigated what had happened and acted. This included reflective practice, training, supervision and reassessing staff competency. Leaders reviewed incidents through governance processes and identified further improvement work. Staff felt able to report concerns and be listened to.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. Staff supported continuity of care when people moved between services or their circumstances changed.

Staff worked with one person, their family, housing provider, case manager and other relevant professionals to support their move from a more restrictive living arrangement into their own home.

Care records included current information about people’s health, communication and support needs. Staff shared information with relatives, advocates and professionals to help people receive safe and consistent support.

The provider worked with people and partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how best to achieve this. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live safely and free from abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

Staff understood safeguarding and shared concerns with relevant professionals. Care records showed staff supported people who were at risk of exploitation, bullying or financial abuse to remain active in their communities. Staff used guidance, advocacy and supportive supervision to reduce risks without unnecessarily restricting people’s independence or relationships. People said they felt safe and supported to manage risks. A relative told us, “Whenever we’ve gone to see [Person], they’re always well dressed and looked after.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks holistically. Staff provided safe and supportive care that enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about people’s health, medicines, emotional wellbeing, community safety and individual ways of communicating distress or a need. Staff involved people in decisions and balanced safety with their rights, independence and choices. This enabled people to live in their own homes, maintain relationships, travel, volunteer and take part in community activities. Staff respected people’s choices and refusals while continuing to offer advice and support. All respondents to the provider’s July 2026 survey said they felt safe and supported to understand and manage risks.

The provider assessed and managed environmental risks linked to people’s care and support. People’s records included individual assessments covering their home environment, mobility, moving and handling, falls, fire evacuation, lone working and equipment.

Staff had guidance about how to use equipment and technology safely, including equipment used to monitor epilepsy risks. The provider also monitored health and safety through its quality assurance systems. A branch health and safety audit completed on 17 August 2026 did not identify any actions. We found no immediate high-risk concerns relating to the environment or equipment.

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.

Recruitment records demonstrated a structured, values-based process that included identity and right-to-work evidence, employment history, references, suitability checks and disclosure verification. Staff completed induction, shadow shifts, probation reviews, direct observations and competency assessments. The provider also had systems for supervision and appraisal. People said they received considerate support from competent staff.

The provider assessed and managed infection risks. Staff had infection prevention and control guidance and training, and people’s care plans described the support they needed with personal care and hygiene.

The provider included infection prevention and control in its health and safety monitoring and quality assurance processes. Business continuity arrangements covered infectious disease outbreaks, and the action staff should take. We found no immediate concerns about how the provider managed infection risks.

The provider made sure people received safe support with medicines that reflected their needs and preferences.

We reviewed medicines risk assessments, electronic medicines administration records, audits, protocols for medicines prescribed when required, and staff competency assessments. Records showed regular auditing and checks of prescriptions, administration records, allergies, medicine availability and staff competency.

Staff promoted independence through prompting and supported administration where appropriate. When medicines errors happened, staff sought medical advice, investigated what had happened and acted, including reflective practice, training, supervision and reassessing staff competency.