Bradbury Outreach Services

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 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. There were processes in place to record and learn from accidents and incidents. Staff understood how to log incidents using the electronic system. Learning was shared through supervision, handovers, and team communication channels. Staff knew people well and gave examples of adapting support approaches, such as gradually introducing walking and community activities to reduce anxieties. People’s relatives told us staff prevented situations escalating because they knew individuals well and recognised early signs of distress.

The provider worked with people and 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.

There were processes in place to ensure people transitioned safely into the service. There were processes to ensure information was available if people needed to be supported by other services, for example in an emergency.

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 any concerns appropriately.

People’s relatives told us their family members were safe. One relative told us, “I’ve no concerns. I feel they’re very good at following protocols and safeguarding.”

Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. They received safeguarding training and demonstrated knowledge of internal and external reporting routes.

The service worked well with people to understand and manage risks. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe and supportive.

Risks to people were assessed, and control measures were in place. One of the risk assessments required further details of the control measures in place. We discussed this with the manager who told us they would amend the risk assessment to include the control measures. Staff encouraged positive risk taking such as reintroducing community activities, swimming and walking, while adapting plans to avoid known triggers. Relatives told us staff listened to them and involved them in updates about their family member’s care.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the environment.

Environmental risk assessments were in place and staff understood how to maintain safe home environments.

The provider ensured there were enough staff to meet people’s needs but had not ensured they had all received appropriate training. For example, there were some gaps in training records, including Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the care certificate. Managers told us dates had been arranged for staff to complete relevant training. We received some mixed feedback from staff regarding training, some staff felt they would benefit with more face to face training and the manager told us they were planning on arranging this.

There were systems to ensure the safe recruitment of staff. We found some gaps in staff recruitment files including gaps in employment history and updating a staff members disclosure barring service (DBS) check (a background check that shows a person’s criminal record, which employers use it to help make safe hiring decisions). The manager confirmed action was taken to address this during our assessment.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs, and relatives praised the consistency of the core teams. One relative told us, “They always send somebody who knows [name of person] and who [name of person] is comfortable with.”

Staff said they felt supported and had access to supervision, where there were gaps in some staff supervision records the manager confirmed they had booked these in.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

Staff had completed infection prevention and control training and told us they had access to appropriate personal protective equipment. Relatives confirmed staff maintained good hygiene practices. Staff followed the providers infection control policy and procedures to reduce infection risks when providing personal care or supporting people in their homes and community settings

The provider made sure that medicines were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff received training and had their competency assessed, Medicine administration (MARs) charts were completed. Staff understood how to record refused or missed doses and when to escalate concerns. One person’s MAR required clearer information recorded relating to the medicines, the manager told us they would include this. People’s relatives told us staff supported medicines appropriately and communicated any concerns.