Alpenbest South

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.

Staff completed accident and incident reports and shared these with the relevant agencies. The provider looked at ways to reduce the risk of these happening again. Lessons were learnt at a local level and across the wider organisation. For example, as part of the lessons the service had learnt, there were clear step by step instructions on what staff should do if a person did not answer their door.

The registered manager understood their responsibility in relation to the duty of candour. The duty of candour requires registered providers and registered managers to act in an open and transparent way with people receiving care or treatment from them.

The provider ensured staff had received relevant training and this included clear actions staff should take to improve the lives and prevent the premature deaths of people with a learning disability and autistic people.

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.

The provider had procedures in place to ensure people’s transition to and from other services was well-managed, including by involving people, their families, and relevant healthcare professionals. There was a business continuity plan in place to ensure there was consistency in the event of an emergency, which included what steps should be taken in various scenarios such as staff shortages and adverse weather conditions.

Staff had shared information in relation to referrals appropriately to ensure there was a smooth transition. For example, there were clear communication systems to ensure important documentation could be found when this was needed and staff worked with healthcare partners to ensure it was clear who held responsibility.

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 and their relatives told us people felt safe with staff. One person told us, “I do feel safe.” Comments from relatives included, “[Family member] is totally safe” and “[Family member] has been with two other agencies and I wasn’t happy about them but with Alpenbest South I can’t praise them too highly.”

Staff had completed training for safeguarding and whistleblowing, and shared information with the safeguarding authority appropriately. They told us they knew how to recognise potential signs of abuse and how to report these internally and externally. One member of staff said, “I couldn’t do that to someone, and I would report them straight away.”

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 and their relatives told us staff supported people to manage risks in relation to their care and were involved in the decision-making process. One person told us in relation to how staff managed their risk of falls, “Very safe; my condition has got worse and I was falling down a bit too often so now I have to be helped.” Another person commented, “I wouldn’t be able to do anything without them – they know me and I know them.”

Staff understood risks related to people’s care and how to reduce these. One member of staff told us, “The care plans are really good and kept up to date. When I read them, I know what that person needs. The office are really helpful too.” Another member of staff commented, “We have risk assessments in the care plans that talk about how to avoid accidents in the person’s home. The care plans have things in them that tell us about the person and what they need.”

People’s care records included information for staff to follow on how to manage risks related to people’s care. This included risk assessments to reduce the risk of falls, developing pressure areas on the skin and financial risks.

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

Staff understood their responsibility to report concerns in relation to the environment and there were systems in place to report these. Staff worked with partners, such as the property landlord, to escalate concerns and care records included information about the environment people lived in. One member of staff told us, “We would always let the managers know if something needed reporting, like a hazard in someone’s home.”

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 and their relatives told us staff generally visited at the agreed times and that they had the knowledge to support people effectively. One person commented, “I have had the same ones (staff) most of the time I have been with Alpenbest South. There is a base of ones that I know and very rarely a strange person comes to see me and if they do, they are always with someone I know.” A relative told us, “Mostly [the same carers], unless they are on holiday or off sick and they send someone different but mostly they are someone he knows. Once or twice, they have sent strangers but usually they shadow his regulars.”

Staff told us they generally had sufficient time to travel in between visits. They told us they received regular supervisions and support. One member of staff said, “I tend to visit the same people. I definitely feel I have enough time.” Another member of staff commented, “I look after a few people, and I haven’t had a problem with that (staffing levels). I have enough time to finish the care.”

Records showed staff had undertaken inductions, had regular supervisions and received direct observations. Supervisions were a dialogue and included discussions related to training needs, such as national vocational qualifications. One member of staff commented, “It’s always good. I like the supervision, because we can talk about the work and what I need as well.”

Staff were recruited safely to the service. This included requesting and receiving references from previous employers and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks are carried out to confirm whether prospective new staff had a criminal record or were barred from working with people at the time.

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.

People and their relatives told us staff followed good infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. One person told us, “They always empty the bins, do the washing up – no problem.” Another person told us in relation to staff following IPC practices, “They have such a routine they know exactly where everything is.”

The provider had IPC policies and procedures in place, and care records included information on what staff should do to reduce the risk of infections spreading. Staff had received IPC training and told us they understood when to use certain personal protective equipment (PPE). One member of staff told us, “We do use it (PPE) when we need to.”

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.

People and their relatives told us they were supported by staff to take their medicines safely. Where people wished to administer their medicines by themselves, staff empowered them to do this, for example by collecting their medicines from the pharmacy. One person told us, “They sort it all out for me. They get in touch with the doctor if I am running out.” A relative told us, “He takes them, but they remind him.”

Staff had undertaken relevant training and competency checks and understood their responsibility in relation to medicines management. There was a medicines management policy in place, and the provider had listened to staff feedback on how the monitoring system could be improved. One member of staff commented, “I think it’s a safe system, using the app. I’ve never had a problem with it. As far as I know, everyone gets their medication on time.”

Medicines were recorded in electronic medicine administration records (MAR) which were kept updated by staff and regularly audited by management to ensure shortfalls were addressed in a timely way. MAR included people’s allergies, how to take their medicines and explanations when the medicine was not administered.