Laurel Court

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 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 learned to continually identify and embed good practice.

Accidents, incidents and complaints were appropriately managed. Investigations were completed when required. Lessons learned were identified and shared with staff to support practice development through regular team meetings.

The registered manager maintained an open and transparent culture through an ‘open-door’ approach.

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 monitored through regular reviews and ongoing involvement from relevant professionals. This ensured care remained appropriate, safe, and responsive to change.

People had hospital passports in place which ensured continuity of care was maintained when they moved between services. Staff had access to information about people and were able to share this with health professionals when required.

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.

There were safeguarding policies in place and the provider shared concerns with the local authority quickly and appropriately. We discussed submitting notifications to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) at the same time these referrals were made, which had not always been done. The registered manager acted immediately to provide the inspector with assurance, improvements to their reporting processes would be implemented and notifications were submitted.

Where restrictions were in place, the provider had applied for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are a set of checks that aim to protect the people and ensure care which limits a person’s liberty, is done in the least restrictive way.Decisions relating to these restrictions were made in people’s best interests and to support their safety.

We found staff had a good understanding of people’s personalised risks and safeguarding needs. and people had a staff member who was assigned as their key worker. This meant staff were able to build trusting relationships with people. Staff we spoke understood safeguarding risks and what this meant individually to people living at Laurel Court

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.

People were supported to make informed decisions and take positive risks to reach their goals. There was an emphasis on promoting independence rather than imposing unnecessary restrictions.

People were encouraged to be actively involved in planning their care and the review process. There was evidence of discussions about their risks, preferences and the level of support they wished to receive. Staff understood people’s abilities and supported them to make decisions that promoted independence while keeping them safe. One staff member described how they supported a few people to attend appointments, but understood they sometimes wished to return home independently, using public transport.

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 service was designed to meet the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people, offering a balance of individual, self-contained apartments, quiet spaces and larger communal areas. This enabled people to choose whether they wished to spend time alone or engage with others, supporting emotional wellbeing and autonomy.

Apartments were personalised and reflected people’s preferences, interests, and personalities. This created a feeling of homeliness.

People were involved in maintaining a safe environment and there was a robust programme of internal and external health and safety checks in place. These checks monitored the safety of the premises, utilities, and equipment and ensured potential risks were identified and addressed promptly.

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. People received consistent care from a compassionate and professional staff team. We observed staff supporting people appropriately and responding to concerns in a timely and safe way.

Staff told us staffing levels were sufficient to support people safely. One staff member said, “We have a broad range of shifts throughout the day. People’s support needs are easily covered. If on occasion, we are short staffed we can move support around a little to ensure people’s needs are met”.

Staffing levels were reviewed regularly and adjusted in response to people’s changing and staff completed a programme of training including eLearning and ‑face-to-face. This supported staff to maintain the skills, knowledge, and confidence required to deliver safe and effective care.

Staff told us they received appraisals and the manager had an open-door policy to provide support if it was required.

Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment records showed all required pre-employment checks were completed, and new staff received a thorough induction programme over several weeks.

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 encouraged to take responsibility for maintaining a clean and hygienic environment within their own apartments. This approach supported inclusion, independence, and shared responsibility for cleanliness.

The provider had effective arrangements to prevent and control infection. Staff had access to an infection prevention and control policy and had completed infection control training. Staff were able to describe situations where infection control measures were required, for example during episodes of infectious illness, and how to manage these effectively using personal protective equipment, hand hygiene and following policy guidelines.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People stored their medications within their own apartments, supported by appropriate risk assessments. People were encouraged to maintain independence where possible, with many self-administering their medication and requiring only minimal assistance or prompting.

We identified an instance where a Medication Administration Record (MAR) had not been signed for every evening dose that had been self-administered. We also observed handwritten MAR charts that had not been countersigned by two staff members to verify their accuracy. While audit processes were in place, these were not sufficiently robust to identify such discrepancies. This was raised with the registered manager, who took immediate action to address the issues and ensure future compliance, and we were assured there had been no impact on people.