Albert 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.

The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At our last assessment, we identified breaches of the legal regulation relating to safe care and treatment. At this assessment, improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer breaching this regulation.

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 systems for staff to learn when things went wrong. Managers investigated all accidents, incidents and complaints. They made improvements when needed, and learning was discussed with staff. Staff explained the procedures for dealing with incidents. They had a good understanding of how to provide safe and appropriate support. People using the service were supported to reflect on situations that placed them at risk of harm to themselves or others . Staff helped them to find appropriate ways to express their feelings.

Staff liaised with external professionals to create support plans and learn from incidents. This helped make sure there was a consistent approach based on best practice.

The provider had systems for safe transitions between services. Since our last assessment, the provider had obtained new properties and supported 2 groups of people to move into these. They carried out assessments, supported people to visit the services and to make choices about décor. The management team explained they were constantly learning from each experience to help them improve the transition for others.

The provider had supported some people to move to the service from other care providers. They had worked alongside others to get to know people and help the person become familiar with staff. A relative told us how this process was personalised and well managed. They said, “Staff did a great job, and [person] is settled.”

Staff created easy to access guides about people’s health and communication needs. These were shared with other healthcare professionals when people needed to access external support.

The provider had systems designed to safeguard people from abuse. Staff undertook training in these. Staff were able to describe how to recognise and report abuse. The provider had taken appropriate action following allegations of abuse. They had worked with the safeguarding authority to investigate these and help protect people from further harm.

People using the service and their relatives told us they were safe.

The provider had requested legal authorisations where restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for people who did not have the mental capacity to consent to their care. Decisions around these were made in people’s best interests and for their safety.

The use of any restraint or restrictions was only carried out when this was part of a person’s planned care and when this was the only option to keep them or others safe. The use of restraint or restrictions was closely monitored to make sure people were safeguarded from abuse. Staff undertook relevant training.

At the previous assessment of the service, we found that risks had not always been well managed. People were at increased risk of harm. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. Staff worked closely with external professionals to assess risks, plan proactive strategies and to support people to express themselves in a positive way. A person using the service told us, “Staff help keep me safe and feel in control.” They discussed how staff had created a tool to help them express their emotions in a calm and positive way. They explained this helped ensure staff could respond and give them the support they needed. Relatives told us incidents were managed appropriately to keep people safe.

Risk assessments were person-centred and included clear plans about how risks should be mitigated or reduced. Assessments and plans were regularly updated.

People were supported to take positive risks to gain new skills and become independent.

People lived in safe and well-maintained environments. Staff carried out regular checks to ensure the environment and equipment were safe.

The provider deployed enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff were assigned to work at a specific scheme. They knew people well and were able to anticipate and meet their needs. An external professional explained, “The service benefits from good staff retention, promoting consistent long-term relationships and continuity of care.” Staff told us they felt staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were designed to ensure people were supported to undertake a wide range of individual and group activities at home and in the community.

The provider had suitable recruitment systems. They carried out a range of checks on staff identity, skills and competencies. Staff completed an induction and regularly training. Staff had access to support through supervision and appraisals.

The provider had procedures to ensure the spread of infection was prevented and controlled. Staff undertook training about this. People using the service and staff helped to ensure the homes stayed clean. Staff carried out checks on cleanliness. Relatives confirmed people’s homes were clean. Their comments included, “It is a clean place” and “[Person’s] room is spotless, so nice and tidy.”

Staff were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons to use when needed.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Medicines were appropriately stored. Staff undertook training to understand how to manage medicines safely. Staff worked with prescribers and other professionals to monitor people’s medicines and make sure these were right for them. Records relating to medicines were clear, well designed and accurate. Managers carried out audits to make sure medicines were well managed.

Staff were aware of the principles of STOMP (Stopping Overmedication of People with a learning disability, autism or both) and worked with other professionals to help reduce people’s medicines when possible.