Whitwood House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Systems and processes in place supported the safe and effective management of accidents, incidents and complaints. The manager maintained good oversight and responded appropriately to any complaints or concerns. When required, thorough investigations were carried out and appropriate actions implemented to mitigate the risk of reoccurrence. Lessons learnt were consistently identified, shared with staff and used to drive improvements.

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.

The provider understood the importance of accurate information sharing to ensure people’s care was joined up and safe. Systems and processes were in place to support people’s safe admission into the service and when needed, transfer out of the service. The provider worked effectively in partnership with other professionals and services to effectively support people.

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 were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. The manager maintained effective oversight of safeguarding concerns, ensuring these were logged and reported to partner agencies, for example, the Local Authority and CQC, in a timely manner. Staff had received safeguarding training and were knowledgeable regarding identifying signs of potential abuse.

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 and safety were effectively, assessed, monitored and mitigated. For example, risks relating to people’s weight. People were being weighed in line with their assessed need, and 1 person who had specific nutritional needs had made significant progress. The person’s relative told us, “At last there is someone taking an interest. [Name] is getting the nurturing [they] need. [They] look like [they have] put weight on and [they] look cared for.”

Care records were accurate, up to date, and reflective of people’s current needs and risks. This enabled staff to support people safely. Regular reviews were taking place in collaboration with people and where possible, relatives. Positive risk-taking formed part of people’s care and enabled them to do things that were important to them.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Since our last assessment improvements had been made at the service to ensure the environment was safe and secure for people to live in. The provider had installed electronic keypads to external doors to enhance the security of the premises. The doors were appropriately closed and secured meaning that only authorised people had access to the office and people’s living space. The environment was safe, however in places required some refurbishment. There was an ongoing plan in place to address this. Appropriate health and safety checks were completed, including vehicle checks.

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.

The manager and staff were kind, caring, respectful and skilled, showing good knowledge and understanding of people they supported. They were visible and efficiently responsive to people’s needs.

Staff participated in a wide range of training relevant to their role, including learning disability training. Compliance with training modules was high and the manager had good oversight of this. Processes were effectively implemented to ensure staff engaged in regular supervision sessions and an annual appraisal to support their role and development. Safe recruitment processes were in place and new staff were supported via a robustly executed induction process to introduce them safely into the service. One staff member told us, “[The manager] gives me maximum support.”

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 service was clean, tidy and odour free. People’s wishes were respected with regards to how they wanted to organise their own rooms but they remained clean. PPE was readily available when needed.

Medicines were managed safely. Systems and processes were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Records relating to medicines were fully complete and accurate. Protocols for ‘as required’ medicines were person-centred and contained detail to support staff regarding when such medicines should be administered. The provider was following ‘stop over medicating of people with a learning disability and autism’ (STOMP) guidance. Where people were prescribed creams, body maps were completed and where needed, appropriate risk assessments were in place. Effective quality assurance processes were in place and staff competency regarding medicines management was regularly checked.