Highfield Farm

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 69 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Systems were in place to learn lessons from accidents and incidents, however staff did not always report incidents in line with the providers own policies. We found an incident which was not reported correctly. This was discussed with the manager on the day of our assessment, and they had recognised some staff required further training and supervision, to ensure they always reported incidents correctly. Accident and incident logs were in place, which analysed themes and trends, and the leadership team reported notifiable incidents to external agencies.

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. Care records were detailed and could easily be shared with external agencies where appropriate. People had 'hospital packs' in place, which detailed their key information and needs should they require a stay in hospital. Staff worked closely with people's social workers, and people's needs and placement suitability were assessed prior to them using the 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. Systems were in place to enable staff to whistle-blow on poor practice and staff told us they felt able to report concerns to the management team. People told us they felt safe living at the service. A person said, “Staff are good, they are nice, I feel safe.” Staff worked with external agencies and took action in response to any concerns raised.

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). In supported living services, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). At the time of our assessment no one living at the service lacked capacity. The service was working within the principles of the MCA and understood their responsibilities to apply for authorisations should they be required.

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. Records were detailed and gave staff information about how to keep people safe. For example, where a person was at risk of falls, this was risk assessed and an associated care plan was in place to mage this. Another person had a safety risk assessment in place, which outlined how staff should support a person who had capacity and may choose to make unwise decisions.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. This included fire safety measures, such as checks of fire safety equipment and fire drills. People had personal evacuation plans in place. Hazardous substances were appropriately stored. Records evidenced staff reported maintenance issues and these were resolved in a timely way. On the day of our assessment grounds works were being undertaken, to enable people to safely enjoy outside areas during the summer months.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Some improvements were required to ensure staff undertook specialised training; this was recognised by the leadership team and plans were in place to ensure all staff undertook this training. However, staff were trained in all areas of core training requirements. People were supported by enough staff, and staff were recruited safely, including police records checks and right to work checks. New staff received induction training.

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 clean and tidy. People's flats were kept clean by people with staff support. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and we observed staff wearing PPE appropriately.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines records were in place or up to date. Whilst we found no harm to people, we found some 'as required' medicines did not have correct information on protocols or protocols to be missing. This was discussed with the manager during our assessment and immediate changes were made to records. The manager had plans in place to audit these protocols and to review these with people's GP. Medicines were stored appropriately and stock was regularly checked to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and had their competencies assessed prior to administering medicines to people. Regular audits were in place to monitor and action any medicines management concerns.