Fylde and Wyre Short Break 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 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.

The registered manager had embedded a culture of learning from safety events. Staff confirmed incidents were fully investigated and debriefs were held with them to discuss incidents and share any learning.

When an incident occurred, the service was open and transparent with relatives and safety events were acted upon and reported appropriately. One relative told us staff had informed them quickly following a medication error, and stricter measures had been put in place. An incident tracker was used to summarise incidents, actions taken and whether they needed to be reported.

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 had created a welcome booklet which included information about the service along with photographs of the premises to help people prepare for their initial visits. People’s transitions were carefully planned to help them settle in and get to know the service and staff prior to overnight stays.

There was a collaborative, joined-up approach prior to people using the service and when people moved on to other settings. A social care partner told us, “I was involved in a transition for an individual. The service shared valuable information with our team regarding their needs, preferences and support requirements. This helped ensure a smooth transition into our service.”

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 received safeguarding training and could explain the signs of abuse and how they would escalate concerns. A safeguarding information file was available to staff and details of the local authority’s safeguarding team was displayed on the office noticeboard for ease of access.

People were protected from financial abuse during their stays, with robust systems and checks in place to record and monitor spending.

The home ensured people were only deprived of their liberty with the correct legal authorities in place to do so. If people were subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), a matrix helped track conditions and renewal dates.

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.

For those people who communicated their needs, emotions or distress through behaviour, there was detailed information in their care plans and risk assessments about known behaviours, potential triggers and the required strategies. The registered manager explained there had been a reduction to behavioural incidents, due to staff following care plans closely and adjusting their approach as a team if strategies were not working well.

Staff had access to information about risks to people in care plans and risk assessments, and key risks were highlighted on a whiteboard in the office so these would not be missed. For example, for those with diabetes, epilepsy or swallowing difficulties. Whilst information in people’s care plans and risk assessments was generally detailed, we found several small inconsistencies.

Following feedback, the registered manager sent evidence the information in the care plans and risk assessments identified had been reviewed and improved.

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 had systems and processes to monitor servicing requirements and organise refurbishment or remedial works at the service. Staff carried out regular safety checks on the environment and equipment in place, including visual checks of people’s own wheelchairs and mobility equipment.

Relatives confirmed the service was well maintained, secure and adapted to meet people’s needs. One area of the service could be sectioned off, to provide an annex for those who needed a quiet, self-contained space.

Staff received fire precaution training and took part in fire drills, to enable them to effectively carry out an evacuation in an emergency. Fire safety checks were in place, and firefighting equipment was available throughout the service.

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 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 had robust recruitment processes and the appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out before new staff started work. Staff received a thorough induction and were not able to work with people who had complex health and support needs until they were fully trained to do so.

Staff confirmed there was a good level of training, with additional person-centred training available to meet the needs of the people they supported. For example, catheter care, PICA and epilepsy. PICA is a condition when people compulsively eat non-edible items. The registered manager had systems to track training compliance and refresher dates.

Staffing was organised based on the number of people staying and their individual needs. Staff confirmed there was a good level of care staff, and a team of causal staff were available to cover their absences. However, we noted concerns which indicated a lack of administrative support and/or managerial support at the service. Please see the Assessing needs, Governance, management and sustainability and Learning, Improvement and innovations sections of this report for more information.
 

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.

The service was observed to be clean and tidy during our visits, with daily support from a team of housekeepers. Relatives made comments such as, “Very spotless,” and “It’s really clean.” Quick response (QR) codes were used to log cleaning tasks as they were being completed, which enabled the registered manager to have good oversight.

Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and posters to prompt good hand hygiene were displayed in bathrooms and the kitchen.

There were jars in the fridge which had not been dated upon opening, to ensure they could be discarded in line with manufacturer’s guidance; and we found several gaps to fridge temperature records.

Following feedback, the registered manager immediately put up a notice in the kitchen to remind staff about food hygiene requirements.

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.

Staff ensured medicines were stored securely and there were robust systems in place for recording and checking medication when people came into the service and for the duration of their stays.

Staff received medication training and had their competencies checked annually, or following any medicines errors. Where possible, 2 staff signed the medication administration records (MARs) when medicines were administered, to reduce the risk of errors.

There was information in people’s care plans about their medication needs and preferences, signs of deterioration staff should be aware of, and the escalation needed for those on high-risk medicines. The registered manager worked closely with relatives or healthcare partners when people’s medicines were being reviewed.