Crawford Gardens

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.

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.

The provider had effective systems in place to record accidents and incidents and completed quarterly analysis to identify themes and trends. Senior managers and the quality team had good oversight of the incidents and follow up actions. Team meeting minutes showed staff discussed incidents regularly, and managers shared lessons learned across the whole team.

One professional complimented the registered manager on how they managed concerns, completed reflective accounts with staff and was eager to improve the quality of care provided.

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.

The provider held panel meetings with other professionals, such as social workers, to discuss potential admissions and confirm the service could meet people’s needs before acceptance. The provider shared examples demonstrating how support had been successfully reduced as individuals’ needs changed or independence improved, highlighting the effectiveness of these panel meetings. The provider carried out pre-admission assessments before people moved into the service and involved them, their families, and relevant professionals where appropriate.

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. For example, where there were risks of self-neglect, they raised concerns with the local authority and took action to reduce risks to people. Feedback from one professional highlighted how the registered manager “consistently raised any quality concerns or safeguarding’s with full transparency.”

Staff completed safeguarding training and were able to recognise the signs of abuse. Managers regularly discussed and reinforced processes for reporting and escalating safety concerns during team meetings.

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.

Staff, including managers, knew people well and were able to clearly describe people’s needs, as well as how best to support them and keep them safe.

Care plans included detailed information on how to keep people safe, such as when to use key safes and the safety measures in place within the home, including personal pendant alarms and pull cords. The managers completed monthly audits to ensure pendant alarms were working correctly. Records showed staff responded promptly when people activated them.

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

The provider worked alongside the housing provider who was responsible for the properties. Established processes were in place to ensure staff reported any environmental concerns promptly and the housing provider followed these up.

People told us they felt safe living in their apartments. One person raised concerns regarding fire safety. We shared this concern with the registered manager, and they were assured with their fire safety measures in place. The provider maintained a business continuity plan outlining procedures to follow in the event of emergencies, including fires. Fire risk assessments were in place, and people had individual evacuation plans tailored to their specific needs.

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.

The provider followed safe recruitment practices, and new staff completed a comprehensive induction before working independently. The service did not use agency staff; instead, it used bank staff or staff from other services where required. This helped maintain a familiar and consistent staff team. Staff received appropriate training for their roles, including learning disability and autism training, as well as training to meet individuals’ specific needs where required.

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 had access to personal protective equipment (PPE), and received training in infection, prevention and control (IPC). A dedicated domestic team maintained communal areas to a high standard of cleanliness.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

There had been a recent increase in recorded medication errors, including discrepancies in recording, stock counts, and administration., The provider had identified these concerns prior to the assessment commencing and taken action to address them. This included increasing oversight, completing regular medication audits, and working alongside the local authority for additional support. The registered manager discussed these themes regularly in team meetings, and appropriate investigations and actions had been undertaken.

Guidance for people who were prescribed ‘when required’ medicines was in place. Some records required further improvement to ensure they were specific and person-centred to support safe administration. The registered manager responded promptly to these issues and made the necessary improvements.

Medication folders outlined people’s preferences for how they wished to take their medication, and self-medication risk assessments were completed where appropriate.