Aspirations Northwest Adults

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 72 (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. Systems were in place to record and monitor accidents and incidents. Staff understood the process for reporting and recording events which occurred. Events were reviewed on a regular basis by the management team and the provider. This enabled them to analyse trends, identify any lessons learnt and work with people and staff to identify why events had happened, and how to avoid situations in the future. Staff told us, “If there has been an incident, there is always a period of time after talk about it” and “I feel very safe and comfortable to raise any safety concerns. They are always fully investigated and discussed at team meetings.”

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. Family members told us their loved ones has experienced a planned transition to the service. Comments included, “The process of transition was fine everything was set up for [Name]” and “I was invited to meetings and viewed the house before [my relative] moved there.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff received training and understood the actions they must take if they felt someone was being harmed or abused. Referrals were made to the local authority safeguarding team when abuse had been suspected, and investigations completed. When a person was assessed as unable to consent to the support they received, important decisions were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Records supported this and the local authority had been informed of any restrictions which had been introduced to keep people safe.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Risk assessments had been completed, and personalised care plans had been developed to mitigate risk to people’s health and wellbeing. This included plans developed with people to mitigate risk through positive behaviour support planning. Staff told us, and records confirmed they received specific training around people’s needs. We identified further work was needed to ensure the leadership team was taking a consistent approach to moving care plans to a new electronic care planning system. Any shortfalls we identified were addressed and we were assured nobody had experienced any negative impact on the support they received. Staff provided care which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment and arranged for routine checks to be completed on any equipment people used. Regular fire safety checks were completed, and people were assisted to carry out regular fire drills to help them prepare for a potential emergency. The provider ensured their presence did not encroach on people’s homes as much as possible and ensured the discrete storage of staff information and belongings. People told us they were happy living in their home. One person commented, “I share my home with two other people. I have my own bedroom and toilet and its lovely.”

Staff were suitably qualified, skilled and experienced. Staff were safely recruited and inducted; appropriate checks had been made before applicants were offered employment. Staff received training to effectively support people with a learning disability and autistic people. Staffing levels were safe, there were enough staff on duty to support people to access a variety of activities both within their home environment and out within their local community. One person told us, “Yes, I do think there are enough staff, and they are kind, they always help me.” Family members gave similar feedback. Comments included, “[Staff] are brilliant with [Name] no problems at all” and “[Staff] are kind you can see they like [my relative]. After a home visit [my relative] is happy to be going back.” We received some feedback from family members and staff about the amount of agency workers used to deliver people’s support. One family member told us they worried their loved one didn’t create the same relationships with agency workers. This feedback was shared with the management team. Staff members told us there had been staffing issues, but this had improved in recent months.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) when needed to assist people. Family members commented, “[Name’s] home is completely safe, and staff wear gloves when necessary” and “I do think staff understand hygiene and infection control. They use gloves and appropriate PPE and there is a lot of cleaning equipment.”

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Family members comments included, “Yes, they support [Name] safely with their medication and understand the risk” and “Oh yes, staff are on top form with [Name’s] medication, they supervise [Name] and record it no problem at all.” Medicines were administered by appropriately trained staff who knew people well. Medicines were stored securely, and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible in the management and administration of their medicines. One person told us, “I have medication and staff help me safely.” Robust provider systems were in place to monitor the frequency of administration of any medicines prescribed to support people through periods of anxiety or distress. This reduced the risk of overmedicating people and ensuring such medicines were only administered in line with agreed plans of care.