Kingsbridge Road

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 as requires improvement. At this inspection,

the rating has changed to 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 and staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider culture was initiative-taking and people’s, and their families’ concerns were listened to by staff, reported to the provider, investigated and people were provided with an outcome. Relatives confirmed this. Lessons were learnt since the previous rated assessment regarding areas such as medicines errors and this enabled identification and embedding of good practice. The provider processes were thorough, up to date and enabled learning from incidents where people may have been put at risk. This promoted people’s safety as a priority whilst not limiting their choices and empowered them to take acceptable risks. A staff member told us, “We are learning all the time. This is always something new.”

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, when people revisited the service. The registered manager and staff made sure they had the most up to date information from relatives before people came to stay. Up to date processes, and systems enabled joined up working. Relationships with healthcare professionals were established to promote and maintain people’s safety. The provider's policies, procedures, and processes were in line with current, relevant legislation.

The provider worked with people, their relatives and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to people 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. There were efficient safeguarding policies, procedures, and processes that followed current, relevant legislation. The systems demonstrated safety concerns were reported to the registered manager, recorded, frequently monitored and raised with appropriate bodies in a timely way. Where appropriate, people and those important to them were involved in this process and informed about what action would be taken to keep people safe. Where people were subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), these were followed appropriately. A person told us, “Staff here are nice and look after me.”

The provider worked with people and their relatives 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 had risks to them assessed, and risk assessments were incorporated within their care plans. They enabled staff to prevent or minimise the identified risks. This meant staff had up to date information about the action they should take to manage those risks. The systems enabled, and supported staff to report concerns, incidents, and accidents in a timely way, minimise risks, and avoid them being repeated. The management team completed regular audits and care plans were updated if new risks were identified. A relative said, “[Person using the service] can do what they enjoy in a safe way.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Processes were followed, which meant identified risks, and hazards were controlled and people using the service, and staff were kept safe. Fire risk assessments were up to date, regularly reviewed and safely managed. This was whilst acknowledging that this was someone’s home in the short term and should be treated as such.

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 staff recruitment process was thorough, and records demonstrated it was followed, and regularly reviewed. Staff received comprehensive training that was based on the Skills for Care 'Common induction standards. They form part of the Care Certificate which is an agreed set of standards that define the knowledge, skills and behaviours expected of specific job roles in the health and social sectors. Disciplinary and capability processes were fair and regularly reviewed to ensure there was no disadvantage based on any specific protected equality characteristics. The processes enabled staff to receive appropriate, comprehensive training that was relevant to their role and enabled them to meet people’s needs. A person told us, “{staff] is my favourite but they [Staff] are all nice to me.”

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 systems and training were efficient and maximised infection control which ensured a clean, hygienic environment for people to live and staff to work in. We observed the home to be clean, tidy and hygienic.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people, where appropriate, and their relatives in planning, including when changes happened. Processes were followed, recorded, and audited including Medicine Administration Records (MAR) sheet completion.