Gray Healthcare

The rating for the safe domain in the previous inspection was good. After this assessment the rating remains good.



The clients we spoke to all said that they felt safe in their respective homes, and that the staff who cared for them were caring; one client said that he did not feel that his care team could be improved.



Staff were asked about their knowledge of safeguarding procedures, and all staff interviewed had a full understanding of these procedures and what constituted the grounds for a safeguarding referral.



The service had a safeguarding process map for the management of safeguarding concerns. The map outlined the steps to be taken in the event of a safeguarding incident, including whether a safeguarding threshold had been met, the relevant authorities to refer the safeguarding matter to, where it was logged for reference, investigation tasks if relevant, and the final processes to review the incident and the correct closure procedure.



Safeguarding training was fully compliant, with intercollegiate training levels applied to each staff member, depending on their role within the service.



The clients we spoke to felt that they had taken an active part in their risk assessment, including the formulation of positive behavioural support plans. They all stated that they felt safe, and that staff looked after them appropriately.



We were told that carers were fully involved in the monitoring of the care received by relatives, including a social media app for parents and carers where information was shared.



Staff told us that they involved people in their care as much as they could regarding management of risk. In recent years, staff at the service have been considered for national learning disability and autism awards for their hard work in this field, and this has been recognised in the work to minimise risk and maximise involvement at the service.



The clients we spoke to said that there were enough staff at each location, and that changes in staff would always be reported to clients if possible.



The registered manager told us that staffing was led by a front-end assessment that indicated the number of staff each client would need, whilst also taking into account the opinion of the client.



Staff told us they felt their current team was experienced and well-trained, with a good skill set. Clients with learning disability and/or autism had staff who had additional training.



Staff training in treatment of clients with autism and learning disabilities was stressed at the service, ensuring a comprehensive action and care plan was in place for those who required it.



Clients told us that they were happy living in their own homes, it was beneficial to their wellbeing and mental health.



Staff told us that environmental safety was a core factor during multidisciplinary team meetings, and that safety at home was key. We saw minutes from professionals’ meetings that clearly showed actions taken when environmental concerns were raised at locations.



Autistic and learning disability clients with sensory needs had adjustments built into their care plan and environments, as well as staffing considerations.



We saw a case study regarding the progress of a client who had many sensory needs when accepted by the service, we saw how the service had obtained a relevant property and had made adaptations to include sensory considerations resulting in a positive outcome for the client.