Winside Care

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 registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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.

People and a relative told us the provider had listened to them when they raised issues about the care they received. The provider and people talked us through the changes made as a response of doing this. People were confident the provider would do this again if a matter arose.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed.

The provider had established systems to promote people’s safety. Care visits were monitored to ensure people received the care they needed. The provider was establishing a staff culture to promote people’s independence with daily living for those who had a learning disability to support them to become more independent in the future and have different opportunities with their day to day lives.

The provider worked with people 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.

We spoke with the provider and staff about their understanding of how to protect people from potential abuse. Staff and the provider had a good understanding of what potential abuse can look like and what they must do about it, which included telling the registered manager and alerting the local authority quicky of their concerns. Staff spoke clearly about the rights of people to be treated as they would all like to be treated themselves. A member of staff said, “We must remove the client from harm and speak out.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider had sat down with people and a person’s relative to look at all the risks which they faced and explore what was really important to them. They created schedules of care and care plans which reflected this. People were happy with what staff did to support them to have a daily routine which was important to them. People’s care plans listed in detail the tasks staff were to do in order to meet people’s daily preferences.

The provider looked at the equipment people needed to mobilise and direct staff about what to look out for in terms of a fault to promote people’s safety when using this equipment. But they had not specifically assessed people’s individual environment and consider their safety. No one had come to harm as a result of this. The provider said they would do this moving forward and they sent us a template of their new environmental assessment.

The provider did make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Staff received effective support, supervision and development. But they had not always ensured staff were always recruited safely.

People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs and preferences. People had continuity of seeing regular staff. Staff received regular supervision and ‘check ins’ from the provider to see how everything was going. Staff spoke positively of the training the provider arranged for them. A member of staff said, “It stretches our knowledge and we have covered some interesting topics which is helpful for all us to know.”

However, improvements were needed in how they always ensured staff had DBS (disclosure and baring service) checks completed at point of employment and when they provided care to people. A member of staff had moved from supporting people who were not in receipt of personal care to supporting people with personal care. At this point the provider had not updated their DBS which was completed 2.5 years prior to this. Nor had the provider at that point been the source of the DBS. Other recruitment checks were completed appropriately. The provider took the appropriate actions to correct this immediately and we saw evidence of an updated DBS. This issue was connected to how the provider audited staff recruitment checks. Which the provided said they would improve.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

People were satisfied with staff’s IPC (infection protection control) practices. The provider monitored their IPC equipment stock, showing us their IPC audits.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were managed and planned for in a safe way.

People had medicine admission charts in place for prescribed tablets. Staff talked us through how they administered and assisted people with their medicines. However, improvements were needed with how people’s prescribed creams were monitored to show they had been applied as per the prescriber’s instructions. People’s medicines care plans were not always accurate and clear with who was administering the medicine and what the role of staff was. These medicine plans were not sufficient to promote everyone’s safety. No one had come to harm as a result of these issues, and we were assured that the provider would address this issue.