Affinity Trust - South West

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 ensured there was a positive and proactive learning culture.

There were processes in place for reporting incidents. Staff were aware of the process. One staff member told us, “We do incident reporting, everything is logged and receipted. Any concerns we go straight to management.”

The registered manager gave examples of how the provider shared learning across the organisation.

The provider worked well with people to understand what being safe meant and they concentrated on improving people’s lives and protecting their right to live in safety.

People told us they felt safe. One person commented, “Yes” when asked if they felt safe with staff. Comments from people’s relatives included, “No concerns” and “No concerns at all.”

The registered manager told us how 1 person had been successfully supported to manage their finances where they were at risk of financial abuse. This had involved input from external agencies.

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.

People’s risks were recorded in their care plans. Staff were aware of the risks. One person had a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) eating and drinking plan in place. The person’s risk assessment detailed what to do in the event of the person choking, it did not include details of the control measures in place, such as staff training. Staff were aware of the persons needs and the control measures in place. The person was aware of their SALT plan however the care plan was unclear on what support the person needed to prepare their meals.

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

Care plans included information relating to environmental safety such as how people would evacuate in the event of a fire. Records demonstrated staff supported people with health and safety checks in their home.

The provider did not always make sure staff were qualified and skilled to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There was a training programme in place and staff received mandatory training. However not all staff had received training specific to people’s needs. For example, 1 person needed support with a specialised diet prescribed by a speech and language therapist, not all of the staff supporting them had received training in this. The person was however aware of their SALT plan. Not all staff had received an assessment of their competency to administer medicines.

The registered manager confirmed they were working with the learning and development team to find a way to manage staff training and monitor the uptake.

We received mixed feedback from relatives regarding the skills of the staff supporting their family members. Comments included, “There maybe a few gaps [in staff skills]”and “Yes, I think so [staff have the right skills].”

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives regarding staffing levels. One relative told us, “There seems to be [enough staff], they are regular and consistent.” Another relative raised concerns that their family member had on occasions “Come home” as staffing had not been available.

The provider had a robust recruitment process which helped to minimise risks to 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’s records demonstrated staff completed checks relating to infection prevention and control.

Training records confirmed staff had received Infection control training.

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

There was a medicine policy in place and people were happy with how staff supported them with their medicines. Risk assessments were in place for medicines that were deemed ‘high risk’. Where people required ‘as required’ medicines (PRN) protocols were in place. We found 1 PRN protocol was not accurate, we discussed this with the deputy manager who told us they would amend the protocol. People’s relatives were happy with how staff supported people with their medicines. One relative told us, “Yes, they’re very good at that [name of person] couldn’t deal with it themselves.”