Shalom

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 for this service since its registration under a new provider. 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 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. Leaders ensured incidents and accidents were reviewed and appropriately acted upon and lessons were learnt and to embed good practice. Staff meetings were held regularly where discussions relating to good practice were featured.

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.

People did not have a named dentist, but staff ensured they had regular visits to a dental clinic to manage their oral hygiene. People were also supported to have annual health checks with their doctor.

One person had had some stays in hospital. Leaders had ensured they were supported during this time and, at discharge, followed care plans that enabled the person to recover well. All people had hospital passports in place to take in case of an admission to share key information and enable a smooth transfer to hospital care.

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. The provider had a robust policy in place and had shared concerns with the local authority in a timely way. Families of the people supported felt they were safely supported.

Staff had received appropriate safeguarding training and had a clear understanding of how to ensure people were safeguarded if needed.

The provider worked with people and their families 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. People had up to date risk assessments which identified risks and how to appropriately manage them. Risk assessments were written considering the multiple needs of people and included input from professionals and families.

People had personal Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place to enable them to be supported in the event of a fire.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure facilities supported the delivery of safe care. Parts of the home were not well maintained. There was peeling paint work on much of the exterior of the building and within the house, the lounge carpet was loose, causing a trip hazard. We discussed this with the registered manager who said this had been identified and was on their schedule of improvements. However, equipment was managed safely and had been regularly serviced.

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 was a staff team who knew and understood the people they were supporting, most of whom had been working in the home for a significant length of time. Families felt there were enough staff to enable people to be supported safely. One relative stated they had “full confidence” in the staff team and the manager.

Staff we spoke to said there was sufficient staffing numbers to safely support people.

Staff had regular team meeting and supervisions and were able to speak to the manager outside of these formal meetings.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading. Ther were areas in the kitchen that were not clean, and there was mould ingrained into the sealant around the windowsills. Leaders shared they had tried to remove the mould but had not been able to and so had added this to a schedule of improvements that needed to be completed in the service. There was a sunshade that covered the front patio which had not been kept clean, neither were the patio table and chairs. This left people at increased risk of infection.

Staff had completed infection prevention control training, and we saw other areas of the home were clean. Staff were ensuring they wore appropriate equipment and were disposing of waste safely.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. The provider had an effective medicine management system to support medicine ordering and administration. Staff involved people and their families in planning, including when changes happened. Some people had as required (PRN) medicines, and there were clear records of how to recognise when people needed their PRN medicine and how to administer them. Staff had received appropriate training in medicine management and administration. Families felt people were well supported with their medicine management by the provider.