Alison House

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.

The last rating for this key question was 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 service promoted a learning culture, and the provider encouraged information sharing so that relatives, staff and external professionals were involved in learning from things that went wrong.

Accidents, incidents and complaints were investigated. Action was taken to make improvements. This included reviewing care plans, risk assessments and processes as well as retraining staff, when needed.

We saw discussions took place at staff meetings to improve learning and practice. The provider shared information across the organisation to make improvements and share learning.

The provider was open and transparent throughout the assessment process. Following the assessment, the provider showed a willingness to embrace any changes that would improve the quality of care to people.

Relatives told us they were informed when things went wrong, and they were able to contribute their views about how to rectify problems.

Staff told us they were encouraged to develop their own skills and knowledge. Staff were supported to take up additional learning opportunities.

The provider’s systems ensured people experienced safe transitions and pathways. Managers assessed people’s needs before they moved to the service and liaised with other professionals and family members.

The service developed personalised plans to introduce and support people during their stay at the service. People were encouraged to attend existing community engagements they had during their stay to ensure continuity. Staff worked well with other stakeholders involved in providing care to people.

Staff supported people to access healthcare and community services when they needed during their stay.

The provider had processes designed to safeguard people from abuse.

Staff were trained to identify safeguarding concerns. They were able to tell us how to identify safeguarding issues and the actions they would take to minimise harm to people.

Staff told us, “Our job is to make sure that the people are OK and not at risk of being harmed.” Staff understood the importance of speaking up to managers or external organisations if they were concerned or witnessed poor quality care.

Relatives told us they were assured their family members were safe at Alison House. They felt confident in the service to look after their relatives on a regular basis and valued the support.

Staff and managers had worked with the local authority safeguarding teams and other external partners to investigate allegations of abuse and put in place plans to protect people from harm.

Staff assessed risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. People had complex health conditions as well as a learning disability. Therefore, risk assessments were critical in maintaining people’s safety. These were detailed to ensure staff knew how to keep people safe and when to seek emergency healthcare.

Assessments included plans about how risks should be mitigated. People were involved in developing their own risk management plans where this was possible; family members contributed to developing plans.

People were supported to take risks and be independent as possible within their abilities.

People were not always able to verbalise their wishes, but staff understood how people communicated and supported them to take part in activities whilst managing risks.

Occasionally people expressed their anxiety in a physical way. Staff followed plans to de-escalate situations and to help people express their emotions in an appropriate way. Relatives and staff confirmed these processes worked well and they thought people were kept safe.

There were procedures to support people to safely evacuate the premises in the event of a fire.

The provider ensured people stayed in a safe and well-maintained environment. Building checks took place to ensure the facilities were safely maintained. We found the building to be in good decorative condition. There was equipment in place, for example ceiling hoists, to enable people to be safely transferred.

Fire safety checks were up to date and each person’s personalised evacuation plan ensured staff understood people’s needs in the event of a fire. Staff were trained in fire safety.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. However, the provider did not have sufficient numbers of permanent night staff which meant they relied on regular agency (temporary) staff.

Lack of permanent night staff meant the service relied on temporary staff. This meant the provider had less control over their training and supervision.

The provider ensured all appropriate employment checks were completed prior to staff starting work at the service. This ensured the provider was confident staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Staff completed inductions to the service, which included checks of their knowledge and competencies. They undertook a range of training relevant to their role and attended regular individual and team meetings with managers to discuss their work.

The provider had systems to help prevent and control infection. Staff undertook training in these.

We saw there was enough personal protective equipment (PPE) at the service.

We saw the service was clean, well maintained and the provider carried out audits of infection prevention and cleanliness. They addressed issues when these were identified.

People received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed.

Medicines were locked in a secure cupboard and records were kept of people receiving the medicines.

Some people were prescribed ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines. PRN protocols were in place.

Staff were competency checked to ensure they were safe to give medicines. We found the provider responded appropriately when things went wrong with medicines, investigated this and made sure systems were in place to safeguard people in the future.

Audits of medicines were completed with regularity to ensure medicines were accounted for and recorded appropriately.