St Saviours Road

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 72 (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.

There were systems to ensure that all accidents, incidents and near misses were reported. Staff told us that people rarely got distressed because they all knew people very well and knew the signs that meant someone might be getting anxious, so they were able to deescalate quickly and offer assurance. On rare occasions ABC charts (antecedent, behaviour and consequence) were completed when minor incidents occurred. These had been to help evaluate what had worked well and what if anything could be done differently should a similar incident occur. Staff told us that there was always a reason and it was often that staff had not noticed something that was important to the person.

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 homes.

There had been no new admissions to the home for several years. ‘Hospital passports’ were used to share information should people be admitted to hospital. This set out important information for hospital staff to understand people’s individual needs including their daily routines. Staff accompanied people on appointments and hospital stays to promote their safety and comfort.

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.

The manager understood their role in managing safeguarding concerns and making referrals to the local safeguarding team. Staff were able to tell us what they would do if they suspected abuse. They confirmed they had received training and were confident in reporting any concern to the manager who would pass this on for investigation.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the home was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. All potential restrictions had been assessed to determine if people had capacity to agree.

People told us they felt safe. During house meetings staff checked in with people to make sure they felt safe. We asked one person what made them feel safe and they responded, “I’m better now.” People’s relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe and happy. One relative said, “He is very happy there. Another said, “Yes, he is trusting and secure at St Saviours.” A social care professional told us, “In my experience, St Saviours provides a safe and supportive home for the people they support.”

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.

Each person had a positive behavioural support plan that detailed what a good day might look like for the person, how they presented when they were slightly anxious and how to help them be calm. In addition, the plan highlighted how the person might present when they were distressed and how staff should deescalate the situation.

Risk assessment documentation was in place that detailed possible risks that might occur in carrying out the activities people enjoyed. This meant staff knew what to expect and this encouraged positive risk taking in line with the principles of right support, right care, right culture to help people complete tasks they wanted to do, for example, swimming and cooking and using buses with staff support.

A staff member was able to tell us the things they took with them when they supported a person with activities to ensure their safety. This person had a health condition that required periodic monitoring and dietary restrictions. Staff were aware of how this was managed.

All staff were expected to attend training on positive behaviour support (PBS) and on non-abusive physical and psychological intervention (NAPPI). Staff told us that sometimes it was difficult to get on a course but that this had been raised at their manager’s meetings.

People had individual emergency evacuation plans which highlighted the level of support they required to evacuate the building safely in the event of an emergency. We observed during a resident’s meeting people were asked what they did when the alarms sounded, and they knew the home’s procedure.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

A few days prior to our visit, a faulty tap caused damage to the bathroom and the ceiling in the kitchen. This was checked promptly for safety. Following our site visit we received confirmation that the repair work was completed and that planned redecoration work for the kitchen would now be brought forward.

Areas of the property were tired and in need of painting and freshening up. The rear garden was on 2 levels. There were decked stairs leading to the top garden. The stairs were in need of repair and unsafe for people to access so this area had been sectioned off. On the lower level the garden area was unkempt, there were items that were due to be taken to the tip, and the grass was very overgrown. Despite this there were areas that could be used and staff were keen to get the garden tidied up. Following our site visits the head of operations advised that the manager would be sourcing a new gardener. In addition, a site visit was planned to carry out an assessment of works required to modernise the home.

Staff had completed online training in fire safety. There was information that described the support people needed to evacuate the building in an emergency. People knew what to do when the alarms sounded. Safety checks had been carried out on fire safety equipment, and a fire risk assessment had been completed and recommended actions addressed.

Environmental checks were carried out at regular intervals; urgent matters were attended to promptly. There was an annual maintenance development plan in place for all non-urgent matters.

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.

There was one full time staff vacancy, and a part time staff member was on long term sick leave. The manager told us that this, along with ad hoc sickness had an impact on staff levels. However, there was a good team of bank staff and where necessary they, or agency staff were used to fill vacant hours. A staff member also told us the “Manager and deputy are always willing to step in at a moment’s notice and I’ve never felt overwhelmed.” The head of operations advised that the vacant position had been advertised.

Staff completed mandatory training and were offered opportunities to complete additional courses for personal development. Staff told us the training was sufficient to meet their needs. There was a guide detailing all the information needed for agency staff to enable them to work at the home. This included information about the house and key contacts including information about what to do and who to call in an emergency. There was also information about each person, their regular routines and how they liked to be supported.

The provider followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure people were supported by staff who were safe to support them. Recruitment records included satisfactory references, employment history, and criminal records checks. Once appointed staff received a detailed induction to the home.

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 were encouraged to get involved in everyday tasks. For example, they set up the table and then cleared it after meals. Records showed that people cleaned their bedrooms each week and were supported to do their laundry. Staff cleaning schedules were completed daily, and audits were carried out to ensure all cleaning had been completed as planned. A relative told us, “The house is always clean and tidy.”

Care staff had received training in infection prevention and control and had access to personal protective equipment. Staff had completed food hygiene training to ensure that they understood how to handle, prepare, and store food properly to prevent illnesses.

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.

Each person had a medicine cabinet in their bedroom. One person was not prescribed any medicines. Another was only prescribed seasonal medicines. There were systems to monitor the temperature at which medicines were stored. One person’s cabinet had become too hot, so medicines were temporary relocated to another secure area of the house that was cooler. Records were kept that detailed how people liked to receive their medicines. There were also protocols for the use of ‘as required’ medicines for pain relief along with guidance on how staff would know when to give each medicine.

Staff had accurately completed people’s medicines administration records, which confirmed that people using the home had received the correct doses of medicines at the right times. Staff received medicine related training which supported them to safely carry out their role, and they were assessed in relation to their competency before they started to support people with their medicines. People received an annual health review that included a review of medicines needed.