Blue Sky Enabling

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 learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Managers analysed audits and adjusted the guidance to support people, based on what the person required in the moment. This meant staff were able to continually adjust support to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they reported any concerns to their manager and the outcome and any changes were then shared with them via email.

People told us they were supported well with their medicines. The provider had a medicines policy to support staff to administer medicines safely. Staff had completed medicines training. However, we saw that records for the time medicines were given were not always clear. We spoke to The Registered Manager about this and they told us that this was due to some limitations of the electronic system they used. The Registered Manager took immediate action by informing staff that they must ensure that exact timings were recorded in people’s daily notes.

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. The provider communicated with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s care records were updated and accurate. For example, the provider worked with relatives when supporting a person to move from their family home into their own accommodation. This meant the transition for the person was smooth and supportive.

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. Care records contained information where safeguarding concerns had been escalated. Staff had completed safeguarding training and were aware of how to raise concerns about a person if required. This meant staff knew how to escalate safeguarding concerns and people were supported to remain safe.

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. Care records contained risk assessments with clear guidance for staff to follow. Risk assessments were person centred. This meant that people were supported to manage risk in a least restrictive way. For example, one person had items they were known to harm themselves with stored securely. Staff told us they supported the person to access any items they wanted in order to remain safe. The person told us “I like the cupboard to stay locked to keep me safe”. This meant that the person had chosen how to manager their risks and were supported by staff to do so.

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 communicated with other agencies with regards to risks such as environmental risks. For example, the fire service had been contacted to provide advice to people on how to remain safe within their own homes. The provider had systems to audit and monitor people’s environment and environmental risks had been assessed. This meant people were protected from risk of harm within their homes.

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.

We saw that there were enough staff to support people safely. One staff member told us they felt agency staffing was used too much. The Registered Manger told us that agency use had increased due to staffing vacancies. However, they had been focusing on recruitment to reduce the need for agency. We were told that the provider worked closely with the agency company in order to provide consistency.

Staff received supervision and training to enable them to complete their role safely. .

There was a clear recruitment process, but 2 staff records identified gaps in employment history which had not been identified. This was highlighted at the time of the assessment, and the Registered Manager took action to address this.

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. The provider had a comprehensive infection control policy. Staff told us they had access to personal protective equipment and were able to explain how to use this safely. Staff had completed infection prevention and control training.

The provider did not always ensure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The provider had guidelines for staff in relation to Stopping Over Medication of People with a learning disability, autism, or both. This is known as STOMP, an NHS England initiative designed to reduce the inappropriate or excessive use of psychotropic medications. However, not all staff we spoke to had an understanding of STOMP. This meant the provider could not be assured that all staff could support people in relation to this.