HF Trust Devon

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 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 provider had systems in place to review and investigate accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns. Staff managed accidents and incidents safely; first aid support was provided where needed, medical support and advice was sought, and management were kept updated. Systems were in place for recording events, and changes had been implemented in response to lessons learnt.

Staff reported an open culture where they were encouraged to report all concerns. They told us, “I inform the manager [of concerns], the managers don’t mess around, they act on anything immediately” and “We report [concerns] to the manager, and it gets resolved.”

People were encouraged to raise concerns and staff supported them to do so.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to stablish 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.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. Information of care needs assessed by the local authority prior to people joining the service was used to inform people’s care plans and risk assessments. Care plans also informed staff of external support input from health professionals such as support from Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) teams.

Processes were in place to ensure people received continuity of care, for example, when people moved into new supported living properties.

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.

People were protected from the risks of abuse and staff were trusted to keep them safe. People told us, “Staff are here all day and night. We are safe here. We are so happy here", "I feel safe. I am happy here” and “I feel safe with the carers.”

Staff had received training in how to safeguard people. Staff we spoke with were confident to report concerns and satisfied action would be taken to investigate them. Staff told us, “I would report [concerns] to the manager straight away. If I needed to, I would contact the local authority” and “I would report [concerns] to the manager and record the concerns on the system.”

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. Care plans provided guidance for staff to ensure people received safe and responsive care and support. Risks were assessed and mitigated to keep people safe. Risk assessments were person-centred and regularly reviewed.

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

People's care plans contained information which evidenced that the safety of people’s home environment had been considered. Home safety plans and environmental risk assessments were in place.

Staff had regard to people’s personal and shared environments, assessing for risks and ensuring they were safe. Staff supported people to maintain their homes.

The management team carried out regular safety checks of people’s homes and communicated with the provider to escalate any concerns and facilitate repairs and improvements.

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.

Recruitment systems were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

The provider had obtained Disclosure and Barring (DBS) check’s before they started employment.

Staff completed an induction when they first started, received regular training and opportunities for supervision [one-to-one support sessions with their line manager]. Staff told us, “I have had training [in various areas] and we can request more training if we want” and “I have done a lot of training.”

The provider had systems in place tomonitorstaffing levels and ensure the supported living properties were adequately staffed and people received their care.

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 provider had systems and processes in place to assess and manage the risk of infection. There were cleaning programmes for each person’s home which people joined in according to their abilities.

There was sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) at each person’s home to provide safe care. This included gloves and aprons. Staff had received infection prevention and control training and understood what to do to mitigate infection risks. We observed staff using PPE appropriately throughout people’s homes.

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.

Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed and medication administration records [MARs] were completed daily. People told us, “I am on medication, I get them all at the right time” and “When we need the medications, they [staff] give us the medication.”

Staff were trained to administer medicines. Staff had to undertake training before they could administer medicines and received competency checks to ensure they administered medicines safely. One staff member told us, “I have had training [in administering medicines] and received a competency check.”

Audit processes were in place for medicine records. Staff and the management team audited people’s MARs on a regular basis and took follow up action with the staff involved where concerns were identified.

Relatives told us “Staff support [name] with medication, they check this for [name] all of the time. No concerns with this” and “They support with arranging [name] annual medication reviews.”