Witham Valley Care Group - DCA

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

Effective safeguarding systems were in place. Staff undertook safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding of how to recognise and report abuse, including how to escalate concerns in line with local procedures.They were aware of nationally recognised principles, specific to autistic people and people with a learning disability which informed their daily practice and supported safe care delivery, such as ‘Right support, right care, right culture. Community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (c-DoLS) are legal authorisations for depriving a person of their liberty in supported living or other community settings. Managers and staff understood when c-DoLS authorisations would need to be sought and what to do if there were conditions imposed.

Relatives were confident their loved ones were safe and spoke positively about the support they received. One relative commented, “It’s safe (because) the support is excellent, I mean really good.” Another relative said, “[Loved one] is safe because it’s all been carefully worked out.”

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.

Risks to people’s health, safety and well-being were assessed and reviewed regularly. Positive behaviour support plans (PBS) were in place which identified known triggers and effective strategies to reduce distress. Staff had a good understanding of how to support people when they experienced distress.

A staff member told us, “We don’t use restraint, it’s all about de‑escalation. We consistently follow support plans and risk assessments which means [people] experience less distress and are able to enjoy their social activities.” A relative told us, “The [support] plan’s incredibly detailed but there’s also a shorter form which works as a risk assessment, so everybody knows exactly what to do.”

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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 were supported by a core staff team, which promoted continuity of care. People were given sufficient time to get to know new staff before they provided care and support, helping to build trust and positive relationships. New staff were recruited using safer recruitment practices, including appropriate checks, to ensure they were suitable to work with people using the service.

Staff received a comprehensive package of training which supported them to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. Staff were also supported with regular supervision sessions and team meetings.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.