Autism Support and Care Also known as Jubilee Court

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

The provider used a digital system to log accidents and incidents, and we saw that the registered manager reviewed these to identify any themes and trends. Any areas of concern, or good practice, were identified and shared with the wider staff team.

This practice of continued learning and ongoing improvement was embedded and supported ongoing good practice which improved the safety of all people living at the service.

The provider worked with the person and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored and made sure there was continuity of care.

The registered manager carried out an assessment of needs prior to care commencing and we saw regular reviews and updates had been carried out to ensure information was current. They worked in conjunction with the person and other professionals. This ensured the person’s needs could be met by the service. Compatibility with existing people was carefully considered to ensure people were suitable to live in the same environment and minimise the risk of any conflict or other negative impact associated with people’s lifestyle choices and support needs.

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 the person’s life 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 can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In supported living services this can be done through the Court of Protection (COP). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed Community DoL and COP orders within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. Authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. The person was not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. One staff member said, “We are helping people and assisting them to live their independent lives, I feel like everyone should have a say in their life and what they want to do in their life by giving them that chance to make their own decision.”

Staff had received appropriate training, had access to policy guidance on safeguarding and demonstrated good knowledge of safeguarding processes. Staff had a good understanding of things which presented the risk of harm to the specific individual and how to manage this, and the person was supported to ensure their safety.

The provider worked with the person to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically about their support. Staff provided care to meet the person’s need’s that were safe, supportive and enabling. The person was supported to do the things that mattered to them that included various outings which were risk assessed. Staff spoke openly with the person about restrictions implemented through a legal framework to support them to remain safe when they voiced displeasure with this. The registered manager explained, “By giving [name] the information and re-enforcing why we [staff] do what we do, is important and they are coming to realise this more.” The person’s care plan emphasised their preferred means of communication to support their understanding and ability to make informed choices by providing information in a way they understood.

Risks were assessed and mitigation was in place which kept the person safe whilst promoting them doing things they wished.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. We saw staff carried out health and safety checks and engaged the person where possible in maintaining their home and a safe living environment. We saw the person’s home was reflective of their personality and lifestyle choices however they were effectively supported to ensure they did not put themselves or their tenancy at risk. Assistive technology was used to maintain the person’s safety in their home when they were not being supported by staff.

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 the person’s individual needs.

Staff received regular supervision to support their development which staff confirmed. Staff received an induction, they shadowed experienced staff and training was completed, including person specific training, to ensure they had the right skills to safely support the person. Staff confirmed they felt supported and were encouraged to undertake training and develop their skills and knowledge. One staff member told us, “Everything’s always a whirlwind in care but I fully feel I am supported.” We did not observe any concerns regarding staffing levels and people did not highlight any issues.

The provider followed a safe recruitment process and had an appropriate supporting policy.

These processes ensured the person was supported safely by appropriately trained staff who were matched to their needs to enable them to work towards and achieve their aspirations and potential.

The provider consistently assessed and managed the risk of infection.

Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment, and the provider had a current infection prevention and control policy to guide staff. Staff received appropriate training and ensured the person was supported to maintain their personal hygiene as well as the cleanliness of their home.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met the person’s needs, capacities and preferences. While the person managed their medicines independently staff did monitor this to ensure their health and wellbeing was maintained through effective medicines management. Staff had all received appropriate training and competency assessments for administering medicines and the provider had a robust medicines management policy to guide staff.