Hazel Homes for Autism

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.

Staff raised and reported safety concerns and events promptly. Managers reviewed these and took appropriate action in response. Learning from the outcomes of investigations was shared with the staff team to help them continually improve their working practices and keep people safe. A relative told us, “If I had any concerns [registered manager] listens and he acts on this and if there have been any mistakes he works to improve things.”

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.

To support a smooth transition, people and their families were invited to visit the service, ask questions and meet their allocated keyworkers, who would support them during the move into the home. Managers gathered detailed information from them, their families, and relevant healthcare professionals to gain a comprehensive understanding of their needs and risks to their safety. A relative told us, “When I first came to visit the home and met the manager, we spoke for over 2 hours and I thought he was a good man, a good manager and he knows his goals…I trusted him. It was the right thing to do.”

Managers used the information they obtained to develop personalised care and risk management plans. In addition to the allocated keyworkers, all staff members were given access to these plans so they could familiarise themselves with each person and their specific needs prior to them moving in.

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.

There was an open culture at the service in which people were comfortable and at ease with each other and with the staff team. A relative told us, “They look after [family member] well. When I go and see [family member] I always observe the way they treat them, and I don’t have any concerns. They never behave badly with [family member].”

Staff received relevant training to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to raise and report concerns when needed. A staff member told us, “If I saw something, I will tell my line manager. And [line manager] will take it forward to the next step…[Line manager] tells us if we don’t speak up, we are an accomplice, so we must speak up.”

Although there had been no safeguarding concerns raised about people using the service in the last 12 months, managers understood their responsibility to make timely referrals when required to the local safeguarding authority.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive people of their liberty where this was deemed necessary to ensure their safety.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People spent their time as they wished at the service and were not subject to unnecessary restrictions. Staff were present, vigilant and providing support in line with people’s planned care.

Staff understood how risks to people should be managed, to keep them safe. A relative told us, “I think [family member’s] safe there. They are very careful with them, which they should be as it is their responsibility to keep them safe.” A staff member said, “We have policies and our training, and this helps us learn how to work with people safely. I look at their care plan and their risk assessment, and this tells me what the risk is…the care plan and positive behaviour support plan helps me to understand how to work with people.”

Managers undertook reviews of people’s care and risk management plans ensuring that staff had access to current information and guidance on how to manage risks effectively and keep people safe.

The provider identified potential risks within the care environment. However, their arrangements to manage risk relating to equipment and facilities did not always consistently support the delivery of safe care.

During our first site visit to the service, we identified the gas boiler had not been serviced within required timescales. After our visit, the provider took immediate action to arrange a full safety inspection of the gas boiler. At our second site visit, this had been completed and there was no ongoing risk to people using the service. The registered manager told us, and showed us evidence, that they had made efforts to have this inspection carried out prior to our assessment. However, there had been delays from the external contractor in scheduling this. Following our site visits, the registered manager supplied further information to provide assurances that suitable arrangements were now in place for an annual inspection of the gas boiler.

Our checks of records showed all other safety systems and equipment had been maintained and serviced in line with requirements to ensure they remained safe and fit for purpose.

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.

Managers made sure there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. They reviewed dependency levels on every shift to ensure the right mix of skilled and experienced staff were on duty.

People were supported by appropriately skilled staff who understood how to meet their needs. A relative told us, “I have visited there a few times…I’ve noticed the staff are very good and they know their job and they know what they are doing.” Managers made sure staff undertook regular and relevant training to meet the range of people’s needs.

Staff were supported to continuously develop and improve in their roles through supervision and appraisal of their work performance.

There were safe recruitment practices at the service. Checks were undertaken on all staff that applied to work at the service, to make sure they were suitable to support people.

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.

People were supported to live in a clean, hygienic environment. A relative told us, “They make sure the place is very clean.”

Staff received relevant training to help them manage the risk of infection. They had access to supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) to help them minimise these risks.

Managers undertook spot checks and audits to make sure staff working practices were in line with standards and national guidance for managing and minimising infection risks. The registered manager told us, “I do the spot checks on staff of their practice, and I think it’s good.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People consistently received their prescribed medicines. Checks of medicines stocks and records confirmed this.

Staff were provided with relevant training and supported to manage and administer medicines to people.

Managers undertook spot checks and audits to make sure staff managed and administered medicines safely.

Managers worked with the relevant healthcare professionals to reduce the inappropriate use of psychotropic medication to manage behaviours in people with learning disabilities and/or autism. The registered manager told us, “We are signed up to STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People) and always looking at ways to reduce reliance of this when it is needed. We are very big on positive behaviour support. Lots of the people that have come here, had a lot of medicines, and we worked with the GP to reduce this.”