Shine Partnerships

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 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 registered manager had processes in place to learn from accidents, incidents and safeguarding at the service. Staff had received training in how to report any issues and had the systems available to them to raise alerts directly with senior staff. Managers fully investigated any issues, lessons were learned and changes were made to improve the service. Information was shared with staff through supervisions, and staff meetings.

Action was taken to understand why an incident had occurred and determine what could be changed to prevent further occurrences. Learning from incidents was a thread running through the governance systems and the management team were keen to identify any problems and improve the service and outcomes for people. Discussions between staff and people took place to ensure practice was reviewed and improved where needed. Staff told us they felt supported and valued. The provider consulted with other healthcare professionals when needed, to monitor and learn from incidents. The staff also discussed any incidents and reviewed whether interventions had worked well or had not worked. They shared their experiences so these could be learnt from, which ensured a consistent and person-centred approach to supporting people.

The provider worked closely with other agencies and health professionals to meet people's specific needs. Comments from people included “I’ve got no problems with nobody. Safe – yeah, everything is smooth. I get on with the staff and residents.” And “100% safe man, from the first person you meet. They really go the extra mile, e.g. They book GP appointments for you, help with benefits, cooking, it’s a great idea.”

Systems were in place to ensure people received a full assessment of their needs prior to and upon admission. The provider involved people and their families in assessments when required. There were protocols in place which guided staff when to make referrals or escalate concerns.

People told us they received safe care. People said staff were very good and did their job well. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding. Staff could explain several types of abuse and what signs and symptoms to look out for. A staff member told us “We look out for signs of stress and abuse. We have to protect clients and report to the manager straight away.”.

The provider had a clear process in place to safeguard people against abuse. There was leadership presence 7 days a week which ensured there was oversight and support, and they commenced investigations as required. Staff received training in safeguarding. This meant they were able to identify any concerns and report them to their managers. There were safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place. This meant staff had guidance to use if needed.

Safeguarding was discussed during meetings and supervision to ensure staff knew how to keep people safe and understand how important this was to their role. The manager had raised safeguarding concerns appropriately and had worked with the local authority to investigate these to ensure people stayed safe.

People told us they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Care plans were clear and provided staff with sufficient guidance to keep people safe. There were sufficient and appropriately trained staff in place to support people.

The service had effective risk assessments in place to help ensure people stayed safe. For example, there were risk assessments regarding people's physical and mental health. These indicated relapse indicators which people living at the service had drawn up with staff from the service and other mental health professionals. They contained detailed and personalised information, including what behaviours they may display when their health was deteriorating but also what they could personally do, if they realised they were having a relapse.

Staff knew the risks to people well and told us they were kept up to date if there had been any changes to risk assessments. Staff completed health and safety, including fire safety checks of the environment to help ensure risks were mitigated as far as possible.

People were involved in planning their care and managing risks. Care plan and risk assessments were person centred and aimed to provide positive outcomes for people whilst maintaining their choice and independence.

Individual environmental risk assessment were in place for those people who were in receipt of a regulated activity.

People were positive about the staff support they received and told us there were enough suitably qualified staff to support them.

Staff told us they were happy working at the service and with the support they received from the manager. A member of staff told us, “There are always enough staff working here. We can always take the residents out if we need to, as there are enough of us working.”

New staff had a full induction which included face to face training and shadowing more experienced staff. Staff were supported with supervision meetings and senior staff completed observations of their performance. The manager was supportive of staff developing their skills with nationally recognised qualifications and sourced external training for staff to enhance their skills. Appropriate checks were in place before staff started work, including providing full work histories, references and a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. DBS provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

People did not have any concerns with how they were supported with their medicines administration. Most people administered their own medicines and were supported to do this.

Staff had received training in managing medicines and had their competency checked. A member of staff told us, “I had my medicines training, and they carried out observations and checked my competency.”

The provider had a medicine management policy in place for staff to follow and all staff received training. If people were being supported with medicines a medicine administration chart was put in place. This contained all the information staff needed to safely support people with medicines.