Slimmerz Rotherham

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

The service had a good learning culture, and clients could raise concerns. The service had not had any incidents in the past 12 months. There were suitable processes should an incident need to be investigated. Clients were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of clients, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care.

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 positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and made improvements. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff felt there was an open culture, and that safety was a top priority. The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff told us they would apologise and offer people support. There was a process which allowed learning from incidents and complaints to result in changes that improved care for others.

The service 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.

Staff would signpost clients to other services such as the local pharmacy and the client’s own GP when needed. Staff were clear about the scope of their role and would ensure clients understood this when referring them to other services. The service sought consent to share information with the client’s own GP.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Safeguarding policies were in place and known to staff, who were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. The service acted on concerns working in partnership with other organisations when needed. Staff could describe their role and knowledge in understanding mental capacity, when offering services to clients.

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

Staff could recognise a deteriorating patient and knew of action to take. Patients were advised on risks related to their condition and actions to take if their condition deteriorated. There was a protocol for dealing with a medical emergency and staff could describe this.

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

Contracts were in place to ensure the premises were maintained. Health and safety risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed. Emergency exits were clear, and the premises had smoke detectors, fire signage and fire extinguishers.

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 people’s individual needs.

We found training was up to date, learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. Safe recruitment practices were followed.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection.

Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. Risk assessments and audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks. The infection prevention and control arrangements were appropriate to the range of services provided and the small team delivering these services.We saw that waste bins were not foot-pedal operated, and we saw that paper towel dispensers in the bathroom were not wall mounted. The provider took swift action to replace these as a result of our inspection.

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

The service prescribes some schedule 3 controlled drugs (medicines that have a higher level of control due to their risk of misuse and dependence). These were managed and recorded appropriately. Some of the medicines this service prescribes for weight loss are unlicensed. The provider informed patients that the medicines were unlicensed before prescribing them. Treating patients with unlicensed medicines carries a higher level of risk than using licensed medicines, as unlicensed medicines may not have been assessed for safety, quality or efficacy. In addition, these medicines are no longer recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) or by the Royal College of Physicians for the treatment of obesity.

The service carried out a regular medicine audit to ensure prescribing was in line with best practice guidelines for safe prescribing.