London Care (Bristol 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.

The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At the last assessment, we identified breaches of a legal regulation relating to safeguarding people from abuse. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. The provider was no longer breaching this regulation.

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.

At our last assessment, people told us managers did not always act or listen when they spoke up and things went wrong. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

The provider supported staff to learn from accidents, incidents and complaints. Staff described how they responded to these. We saw these were investigated and the provider took action to make improvements and help to prevent reoccurrence. Managers discussed these with staff to ensure everyone working at the service was involved in learning and improving practice. Relatives explained they were informed of any accidents and incidents.

The provider supported people to have safe transitions between services. Managers assessed people’s needs and liaised with other professionals to make sure they understood how to support people when they moved to the service. A relative described how staff had worked closely with them and the person using the service to ensure they had a safe transition back following a prolonged hospital stay. The person’s needs had changed, and staff worked with other care professionals to ensure the person could remain living at Bristol Court.

Staff created quick reference documents about people’s health and communication needs. These were shared with other professionals when people needed treatment or care outside of the service. This helped to ensure this treatment was safe and appropriate.

At our last assessment, we found that managers and staff had not always followed safeguarding procedures or acted when people made allegations of abuse. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

The provider had procedures to safeguard people from abuse. Staff undertook training in safeguarding adults. Staff were able to tell us the processes for recognising and reporting abuse. The provider had worked with the local authority and others to investigate allegations of abuse and to protect people.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe. They were able to speak up if something was wrong and were listened to. A person commented, “I trust staff, they are well trained. I feel safe here.”

The provider had requested legal authorisations where restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for people who did not have the mental capacity to consent to their care. Decisions around these were made in people’s best interests and for their safety.

At our last assessment, we found some risks had not been planned for. At this assessment we found improvements had been made. Staff assessed risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. They created plans to help mitigate risks. People were asked for their views and given opportunities to make decisions about risks. Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people received the support they needed to stay safe. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated.

Managers told us staff had undertaken training to help them understand how to provide support to help reduce the likelihood of people becoming anxious or agitated. We observed staff supporting some people to stay calm and to diffuse a situation when they had started to disagree with each other. Staff told us training and guidance had helped them to understand different ways people expressed themselves and how to support them to do this in a positive way.

People using the service told us they felt risks were well managed. Their comments included, “We are given pendant alarms, and we can call for staff if we need” and “Staff help keep me safe by checking for out of date food in my fridge.”

The provider worked in partnership with the housing service to help make sure people lived in a safe environment. Everyone lived in their own flats. Staff assessed the risks within these and liaised with the person, their representatives and housing service to share any identified risks and to plan how these should be managed.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. People were supported by the same familiar staff. They had good relationships with them. People told us staff arrived on time for care visits. People were able to use an emergency call service to request additional support when needed.

The provider had procedures to ensure suitable staff were recruited. These included a range of checks on their identity, skills and experience. Staff took part in comprehensive inductions and a range of training. Managers regularly assessed their knowledge and competencies. There were opportunities for staff to meet with managers to discuss their work.

Staff told us there were enough of them and they felt well supported.

The provider had systems to help prevent and control the spread of infection. Staff completed training to understand about these. Staff were able to access personal protective equipment (PPE) when needed. People using the service and their relatives using the service told us they were happy with the cleanliness of their flats and support they had from staff with this. Their comments included, “Cleaning is done once a week, and it is wonderful” and “My relative likes things to be ordered and clean. This is what happens at Bristol Court.”

At our last assessment, we found that improvements were needed to the way medicines were being managed. At this assessment, we found those improvements had been made.

Medicines were safely managed. There were systems for ordering, administering and monitoring medicines. Staff were trained and assessed as competent before they administered medicines. Medicines were safely stored. Staff kept appropriate records.

The provider had a system to monitor and audit people’s medicines on a regular basis. We found that improvements had been made because of this. Medicines related incidents were investigated properly. There were appropriate action plans and processes to ensure staff learned from these incidents to prevent them occurring again.

People received their medicines as prescribed.People told us they were happy with medicines support.