HF Trust - Bradbury

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and immediately flagged to managers. Staff received a debrief with a manager following any incident. They told us these were an opportunity to learn from the event and implement any changes to mitigate the risk of re-occurrence.

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 had hospital passports which gave an overview of their needs and how best to support and communicate with them. This meant hospital staff had immediate access to important information if people were admitted to hospital unexpectedly.

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.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns. One member of staff told us, “I would report any safeguarding. The people we support are the reason we go to work; I wouldn’t worry about stepping on anyone’s toes.”
Relatives and external healthcare professionals told us they were confident people were safe. A relative told us, “[Name] tells staff when [pronoun] wants them to go and they are really respectful of that. They check to make sure [Name’s] safe. I have no worries about that.” A professional commented, “They provide effective and appropriate care to the residents I have worked with, ensuring they remain safe both within the establishment and when accessing the community.”
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We assessed whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found mental capacity assessments were detailed, decision specific and reflected people’s individual abilities to make decisions about their care and support.
 

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.

When people were identified as being at risk, risk assessments were completed. These highlighted the risk and provided guidance for staff on how they could mitigate it. Care plans and risk assessments were updated regularly and when people’s needs changed.
There were plans to support staff in the event of an emergency. Business contingency plans covering various scenarios had been developed. For example, there were contingency plans for power failure, extreme weather conditions and food safety. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) had been developed and were up to date.

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

Environmental risk assessments had been completed. Staff supported people to keep their individual flats maintained. Any defects were reported to an internal maintenance team or external contractors if necessary.

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 were enough staff to support people in line with their identified needs and preferences. If needed, agency staff were used to cover any gaps in the rota. Checks were completed to help ensure agency staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to work in the service.

Recruitment checks were carried out before any new staff started work. This included criminal background checks and following up references from previous employers. Before starting work, newly employed staff completed an induction. They told us they were well supported during this process and were able to request extra support if they lacked confidence. Staff received regular supervisions and training relevant to people’s needs; this was updated regularly.

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 supported people to keep their homes clean and tidy. Relatives did not raise any concerns about infection control. Personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons was available for use when required.

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.

People had access to medicines to be used when required (PRN) such as pain relief. PRN protocols guided staff on when and how these should be administered. Staff usually recorded if they had been effective. However, we did identify some gaps in these recordings. We highlighted this to the registered manager who told us they would address this with the staff concerned.
Staff had completed training in the administration of medicines and had been observed to help ensure they were competent. Following any medicines error the staff responsible for the error were required to retake the training and have their competency re-assessed.
Medicine Administration Records (MARs) were kept to evidence people had received their medicines as prescribed.