Cranbrook House

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 as 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.

Systems were in place to learn lessons following accidents and incidents.

An incident and accident policy was in place that detailed the process to managing incidents. The nominated individual told us that there had been no incidents, but should incidents occur this would be analysed with action taken and lessons learnt to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

The provider worked with people and professionals to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care when people were being supported.

Systems were in place to capture information as part of the pre-assessment process to determine if the service could support people safely. This included speaking with the referring agency, the person and their relatives where possible.

We saw that pre-assessment had been completed and used to record key information about people’s support and care needs to determine the support required. This information was then used to create care plans based on people’s preferences and choices on the support they required. The nominated individual told us, where possible, people had the same care workers to ensure relationships were built so people received 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.

A safeguarding policy was in place that detailed the types of abuse and how to escalate concerns if staff suspected or saw abuse to ensure people were protected.

People told us that they felt safe when supported by staff. A person told us, “Yes, I am happy here. I like living here.” A staff member commented, “People are happy here and well cared for.”

A safeguarding care plan was in place with risk assessments that detailed people’s background and on how to keep people safe.

Staff knew about safeguarding processes and had received training in this area. Staff told us that they received safeguarding training. A staff member told us, “I have been trained on safeguarding. Safeguarding means protecting people to ensure their safety, free from abuse and neglect. Protect them from harm. If I see this, first thing I will do is call the office, my superiors and make sure people are safe. It is my duty to make sure people are safe.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were in place to ensure people received safe care. Risks had been identified and there were risk assessments to ensure people were safe when being supported. Guidance was in place for staff to follow on what actions to take in relation to managing risks to make sure people remained as safe as possible.

There were risk assessments in place for every stage of care and support people received such as risks associated with mobility, delivering care, nutrition and health conditions.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

Risk assessments had been completed on people’s home environment. Information included details on risks or hazards within the environment to ensure care and support could be provided to people in a safe way. Risks to staff and people were minimised such as on fire safety and hazards to minimise falls.

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.

Staff had completed key training which included safeguarding and positive behaviour support. Specialist training was also completed, including in key topic areas such as caring for people with a learning disability and diabetes. Staff completed the Care Certificate training. The Care Certificate isa set of 16 mandatory standards for healthcare and social care support workers in the UK, developed by Skills for Care, Skills for Health, and NHS England. Systems were in place that showed the training staff had completed and the dates the training were completed to ensure management oversight. A staff member told us, “I have been trained in my role to do my job. It is helpful.”

Staff had also completed induction training and shadowed experienced care workers to familiarise themselves on their role and responsibilities. A staff member told us, “Yes, I got induction and shadowing and good training. It was very helpful as I was very new to the job, so it was good.”

Regular supervisions had been carried out to ensure staff were supported. Staff confirmed they received regular supervisions and support from the management team. Appraisals had also been completed for staff members employed by the service for more than 12 months. A staff member told us, “[Registered manager] is a very good manager, very supportive.”

Staff also received spot checks to check if they were competent in their roles and welfare checks were carried out on people to get feedback on people’s views on staff approach and delivery of care, which formed part of staff supervisions. A staff member told us, “I get regular supervision, spot checks and observations to make sure I am doing well in my role. Company keeps everything up to date.”

There were appropriate numbers of staff on duty to support people safely at the supported living site. Rotas confirmed there were enough staff to support people safely. We observed staff were available to support people when required.

Records showed relevant pre-employment checks, such as criminal records checks, right to work in the UK, references and proof of the person’s identity had been carried out to ensure staff were of good character.

The provider had an effective approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection, which is in line with current relevant national guidance.

Systems were in place to control and prevent infection. We observed the supported living site was clean and tidy. Staff were able to tell us the process of ensuring people were protected from infection such as good hygiene protocols and wearing personal protective equipment. Staff had been trained in infection control. Infection control care plans were in place and risk assessments had been completed to minimise the spread of infection.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People administered their own medicines. A medicine policy was in place. Medicines audits were carried out to ensure people received and administered their medicines safely. We observed medicines were securely stored and people could access their medicines when needed.

Staff had been trained on medicine management and received medicine competency assessment to ensure they were competent to manage medicines safely should people require support with medicines.