The Apuldram Centre

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 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.

Accidents and incidents were investigated, used to inform any changes to the service, and the provider apologised when things went wrong. This was in line with their responsibilities under their duty of Candor. Incidents were logged to enable any trends or patterns to be identified. Incidents were responded to appropriately and lessons learned were shared with the staffing team and the wider organisation.

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.

We saw examples of close partnership working with a range of health and social care professionals, fully involving people. The outcomes were clear and worked towards a more positive experience for the person. A person told us, when talking of staff, “They help me with doctors and things.”
 

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 said they felt safe with the staff. One person said of a staff member who frequently supported them, “I am happy living here, they [staff] are kind to me.”

Staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding and where they had concerns, they raised these appropriately meaning action could be taken if required. Staff members told us how they would pick up on potential signs of abuse and report them. One said, “I would contact the manager and report on our system after I made sure the person was safe.” Managers and staff understood their responsibility to report concerns within the service and to external authorities where required.

Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were protected when issues around capacity had been identified. Mental capacity assessments had been conducted and recorded to determine whether they had capacity to make specific decisions about their care.
 

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.
There was a balanced and proportionate approach to risk that supported people and respected the choices they make about their care. For example, specific risk assessments had been completed on activities people engaged in outside their homes, so they could participate in things that mattered to them.

Staff were clear about people’s assessed risks however the registered manager was working to improve detail in the written records. This was because the online monitoring system was not always as detailed as the registered manager would like. However, there was no negative impact to people as a result of this.

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

The provider ensured they assessed potential risks associated with staff visiting supported living houses, for example access issues. Staff confirmed they had a system to support people to raise any maintenance or repair issues with landlords.
 

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.

People told us they had staff they liked to support them. One person said, “They are good, they help me.”

Staff were recruited safely, this included taking up references and carrying out required checks. Once recruited staff undertook an induction and training program, which included the opportunity to get to know people before they started to deliver personal care. One new staff told us, “I’ve just finished my care certificate and had some Makaton training.” Makaton is a type of sign language often used by people with a learning disability to aid communication. Staff received ongoing training and supervision.

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.
There were policies and guidance in place and staff had access to personal protective equipment and training as needed.
 

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.
The registered manager told us at the time of our visit some of the people receiving regulated care, managed and administered their own medicines. However, some people liked support with administration, ordering and collecting medicines and attending appointments. Staff had all received medicines training, and this was regularly updated, with practice competency checks also taking place.

People were involved in their own care regarding medicine, and the details of support needed, and involvement was recorded in people’s support plans. Staff were able to give detailed information about individuals support needs, including preferences of how they wanted to receive their medicines.