Gerard Road

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. Accidents and incidents were analysed and trends and patterns identified to improve practice. A discussion was held following incidents to identify the root cause and to look at what could happen in the future to prevent such events. Staff were guided through a learning process to help them understand anything that went wrong.

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. Support plans were detailed and up to date, reflecting people’s current needs and preferences. Information from support plans was used to pass on to other providers to ensure 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 a safeguarding policy in place and staff knew how to respond to concerns. People told us they felt safe living at the home. One person said, “Yes, I do feel safe, very safe.” One relative said, “[Family member] responds well to staff and never shows any distress or fear in their presence.”

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. Accidents and incidents were analysed and trends and patterns identified to improve practice. A discussion was held following incidents to identify the root cause and to look at what could happen in the future to prevent such events. Staff were guided through a learning process to help them understand anything that went wrong.

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 took appropriate steps to make sure the premises and appliances used were maintained in a safe way. There were regular checks on safety equipment, such as fire alarms and emergency lighting. The registered manager was in the process of working to an action plan which had arisen as a result of a recent fire assessment. We saw appropriate actions were being taken within the agreed timescales.

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 had a robust system to ensure staff were recruited safely. New starters completed an induction programme which included training and shadowing experienced staff. Staff had access to appropriate training and support. Staff told us they could ask for additional training they felt they needed to carry out their roles better.

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. We carried out a tour of the home and found some minor issues with cleanliness. These issues were addressed straight away. Staff understood the importance of reducing cross infection and had received relevant training.

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. At our previous assessment, we identified some shortfalls in relation to medicines management. The service had since improved their systems and could demonstrate people received their medicines as prescribed. Guidance was in place to help staff administer medicines safely. Staff felt confident in medicine administration and confirmed they were aware of how to report any concerns. People and relatives had no concerns relating to medicines management at the service. The provider worked in line with STOMP, which is national best practice guidance on stopping the over-medication of people with a learning disability and or autistic people when distressed. There were systems in place to ensure people’s distressed behaviours were not inappropriately controlled by medicines.