Stokewood

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 service demonstrated a strong learning culture specific to mental health care. Incidents relating to people’s emotional distress, self-injurious behaviour and episodes of emotional escalation were reviewed regularly. processes. Following incidents staff focused on understanding people’s emotional triggers, identifying unmet psychological needs and early warning signs of relapse so that prompt action could be taken to reduce the likelihood of safety incident occurring. Learning from incidents had resulted in improved positive behaviour support plans, increased use of de-escalation strategies and reduced reliance on restrictive interventions.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure safe transitions for people with mental health needs. Pre-admission assessments were comprehensive and included psychiatric history, risk of self-harm, previous trauma, coping strategies and protective factors. Transitions between inpatient mental health services, crisis teams and the care home were well managed, reducing anxiety and promoting continuity of care.

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.

Safeguarding arrangements were effective and sensitive to the complexities of mental health care. Staff understood how mental illness could increase people’s vulnerability to emotional abuse, self-neglect, and exploitation. Safeguarding concerns, including risks associated with self-injurious behaviour, were appropriately escalated while maintaining a therapeutic and person-centred approach. Where needed multi-agency safeguarding plans were in place to keep people safe. People told us they felt safe.

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.

People were meaningfully involved in managing risks associated with their mental health. Risk assessments and safety plans were co-produced and focused on empowering rather than restricting people. People identified their own triggers for anxiety and depression, and agreed personalised coping strategies, including grounding techniques, time-out plans, and access to quiet spaces. One person was supported to engage in exercise as part of their coping mechanise.

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

The physical environment supported emotional safety and mental wellbeing. Risk assessments addressed potential ligature risks while ensuring people’s privacy and dignity were preserved. The home provided calm, low-stimulus areas for people experiencing heightened anxiety, as well as communal spaces that encouraged social connection without overwhelming people.

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.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of people with complex mental health needs. Staff had the skills and experience to support people during periods of acute distress, emotional dysregulation and behaviours that challenged. The service ensured continuity of care, which supported therapeutic relationships and emotional trust. The provider had effective recruitment procedures in place and staff were appropriately inducted, trained and supervised to deliver care effectively. Staff told us they felt supported in their role and records demonstrated they received appropriate support, supervision and 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 provider had effective infection prevention control measures in place. Staff adhered to hand hygiene requirements, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) protocols, and cleaning routines. People with particular conditions were monitored closely for infection, with audits and outbreak plans implemented according to best practice guidance. Professionals visiting the service noted compliance with IPC standards and protocols were embedded into daily routines.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines management reflected best practice in mental health care. Psychotropic medicines were regularly reviewed with prescribers, with a clear focus on therapeutic benefit and side-effect management. ‘When required’ medicines for anxiety or agitation were used appropriately, with clear guidance to prioritise psychological and environmental interventions first. staff had received training; records showed people had received their medicines as prescribed.