Abbeyfield Hope Bank View

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. The provider investigated incidents, accidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns and acted to help keep people safe. The findings were reviewed and analysed to identify learning and help prevent recurrence.

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. People’s needs had been assessed both before and after moving to the service. This provided opportunities for people to discuss how they wanted to be supported and their preferences.

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 confirmed they felt safe with the staff providing their care. A person told us, “I know staff very well and I do feel safe with them.” Staff knew how to identify and report concerns.

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. Where potential risks had been identified, the provider carried out a risk assessment which detailed the measures in place to keep people safe.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The provider completed a range of health and safety checks to maintain a safe environment.

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. Most people said staff were on-time and stayed for the full length of the call. A person said, “They are always on time, sometimes if they have done everything they will ask if I need anything else, and if not, they will go early.”

Staff told us the staffing situation had improved due to a significant reduction in agency staff use. A staff member said, “I am okay with the staff situation at present.” Staff also confirmed they received good support. A staff member said, “I am very supported, I have a good relationship with [registered manager]. Regular 1 to 1’s are done and competency and spot checks.”

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. The provider had specific policies and procedures to maintain good infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. The provider’s IPC audits showed staff followed these consistently. A person said, “Someone comes to clean my flat, give medication and give me personal care.”

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning. Most aspects of medicines management were handled safely. The provider used a specific code and explanation to identify why medicines had not been administered as expected, however this was not recorded consistently. Staff were also using different codes to evidence ‘when required’ medicines were not needed. The provider acted immediately to ensure staff were following the agreed protocols for recording medicines.