Town Close

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 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 had effective systems in place to review and investigate accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The management team ensured investigations of accidents and incidents took place to determine what actions were required to reduce the risk of recurrence. As well as evidence of individual reflective practice, the registered manager explained that regular documented team meetings were used to discuss any areas where lessons could be learned or improvements made.

The provider was open and transparent about incidents and accidents that occurred, they were recorded and reported appropriately. Staff told us their learning was kept updated to ensure people’s needs continued to be met.

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 were assessed before they began receiving care by a multi-agency allocations panel involving the housing manager, care manager and the registered manager of Town Close. This ensured that the care and support provided was safe, appropriate, and tailored to each individual’s requirements. One person told us, “The staff are very nice, and they always keep me informed. I was involved in planning what care I need.”

People had hospital passports in place in case they were admitted to hospital, ensuring continuity of care.

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.

The provider had effective systems in place to investigate and analyse incidents, ensuring action was taken to reduce the risk of recurrence. The registered manager took appropriate action when safeguarding incidents occurred. This included following the duty of candour and reporting concerns to external agencies such as the local authority safeguarding team and CQC. People told us they felt safe and well supported by staff, with one person commenting, “I am very satisfied. All staff are kind and caring in the true sense of the word.”

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.

Systems were in place to identify and plan for risks to people’s safety and well-being. Staff had access to person-centred risk assessments that considered the persons individual needs and circumstances. These assessments included measures to reduce potential risks and promote people’s safety. A staff member told us, “All people have person centred risk assessments. Management have been good at organising these in the office, so you have all the information at your fingertips.”

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

People lived in apartments which were purpose built for independent or assisted living. A service level agreement existed between the housing provider (based on site) and the care provider which set out responsibilities in terms of building maintenance and security. In conjunction with the housing provider, environmental risk assessments had been completed to identify and manage potential hazards within people’s home environment. This ensured appropriate measures were in place to promote the safety of both the person receiving care and staff providing the support.

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 provider followed robust recruitment practices to make sure all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Disclosure and Barring checks were carried out. These provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff were always available when people needed them. People who used the service had pendent alarms which they could use to alert staff in the event of an emergency. Staff were on site 24-hours a day and had access to a duty manager at night for advice should they require it. One person told us, “Staff are well trained. If I’m not well, I press my pendant and somebody comes. Staff always come quickly.”

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 protected from the risk of infection. The provider had systems and processes to assess and manage the risk of infection. Spot checks were completed, which included observations and discussions with staff to ensure they were following effective infection prevention practice. Staff explained that they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and disposed of this safely. A staff member stated, “I have completed training in IPC. There is always enough PPE, about 2 PPE stations on each floor.”

People told us they had no concerns about infection prevention control measures and that staff always wore PPE. One relative told us, “Staff certainly always wear gloves, but if they were going into the bathroom, they would put on more PPE.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Some people who received care from the provider were supported with their medicines. Staff who administered medicines had completed medicines management training and had undergone competency checks to make sure medicines were administered safely. The registered manager carried out regular audits to ensure people received their prescribed medicines correctly, on time and in a safe manner. Audit findings were reviewed to identify any trends or patterns, such as missed doses, so that that lessons could be learned and improvements made.