Longlast

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 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. Staff and leaders reflected on practice and implemented changes. The registered manager actively engaged with forums, training and shared learning networks to improve practice and outcomes for people. The registered manager told us all staff were involved in learning from incidents and contributed suggestions for improvement, “Staff are open to change, they express their views."

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. Staff and leaders reflected on practice and implemented changes. The registered manager actively engaged with forums, training and shared learning networks to improve practice and outcomes for people. The registered manager told us all staff were involved in learning from incidents and contributed suggestions for improvement, “Staff are open to change, they express their views."

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. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals, including occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, learning disability teams and hospitals to ensure continuity of care.

The provider had processes in place to support people when they moved into the service or returned from hospital. Assessments were completed, care plans were reviewed and updated, and additional staff training was arranged where required. This helped to ensure people experienced safe, coordinated and person-centred transitions between services. A professional told us, “The staff are very responsive to emails and phone calls and in providing any information that I require in a timely manner.” Relatives told us transitions were supported well which resulted in smooth and consistent 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. Safeguarding concerns were reported appropriately, investigated and lessons were learnt from incidents and external concerns. Staff received safeguarding training and people had access to easy read safeguarding information and guidance. A staff member told us, “The residents are safe at Longlast. The staff team look after them very well.” A professional said, “They are a very quiet, settled home. Safeguardings are few and far between.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that the service was meeting these principles and any conditions associated with DoLS.

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. People were involved in managing risks in ways that promoted their independence and respected their preferences. Risk assessments were person-centred, regularly reviewed and included measures to reduce risks without unnecessarily restricting people. Staff used personalised approaches to help people understand and manage risks, including fire safety, community access and healthcare decisions. A relative told us, “[Person] is safe yes. If anything happened to her it would be beyond the staff’s control. Her health and safety are paramount. They try things in small ways first."

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People lived in an environment that was clean, homely and maintained to support their safety. Regular health and safety, fire safety and environmental audits were completed, and actions were taken promptly where improvements were identified. Fire safety systems, personal emergency evacuation plans and maintenance processes were in place to help keep people safe. The gardens were also spacious and well presented, offering people access to safe outdoor space. Relatives, staff and professionals all told us the home was safe and well-maintained. A relative said, “The condition of the place [family member] lives in is wonderful."

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 suitably skilled and trained staff to meet people's needs safely. Staff were recruited safely and in line with good practice. Staffing levels were planned using dependency assessments, training compliance was high, and the service did not use agency staff, which promoted continuity of care. Staff received regular supervision, competency checks and support to maintain safe practice. A relative told us, “The staff are well trained and so good with the people.” Relatives and staff told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs and support people to do the things they liked, including regular community activities.

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 received infection prevention and control (IPC) training and audits were completed regularly. The home was observed to be clean and hygienic, with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplies and hand hygiene arrangements in place. A professional told us, “From an IPC point of view I have no concerns when I go in” and “The home is clean tidy, with no odours."

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. Medicines were managed safely, and staff understood people's individual medicines needs and preferences. Regular audits, competency assessments and training supported safe medicines administration, and learning was implemented following medicines errors to reduce the risk of recurrence. People received reviews of their medicines and staff worked with healthcare professionals when changes were required. Staff were aware of STOMP, Stopping the Over-Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or Both, guidance and ensured people had regular reviews of their medicines.