Walsingham Support - Supported Living Doncaster

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 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 75 (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. Accidents and incidents were recorded, reviewed and analysed to identify lessons learned. Feedback was provided to members of staff which supported a learning culture in the organisation.

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 had health passports in place which contained information about their support needs and preferred approaches to care and support. This information supported successful transitions between services and promoted better outcomes for people.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way for this to be achieved. 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. People’s families told us they were safe and they knew how to raise any concerns to members of the management team. One relative told us, “I have resorted to safeguarding multiple times although it seems to be getting better with the new house manager.” Another relative told us, “Yes, [family member] is 100% safe, absolutely.” There was information about how to raise concerns about safety available in easy-read format for people and there was an organisational safeguarding policy in place. Members of staff confirmed they had accessed training to keep people safe and they were confident to report any concerns about safety. One member of staff said, “Yes, I have access to policies. If I suspected abuse I would report it to my manager straight away. If I witnessed the abuse taking place I would intervene and ask the alleged abuser to move away from the person been abused. Then report it and write everything down I had seen and anything the person being abused had told me. I could also report it to the safeguarding team and CQC. Walsingham Support also have a confidential line you can call if you suspect abuse or anything that does not seem right.”

We saw evidence the provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to review people’s capacity and understanding around receiving care and support. The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things which mattered to them. People's care plans were person-centred and risks were assessed appropriately and care met people's needs. This enabled people to do the things which mattered to them. One page summary profiles in people’s care plans made it easy to get to know people and how care should be delivered to meet their needs. A relative told us, “My [family member] is in a place that meets their needs. They are non-verbal and they can eat and drink by themselves but nothing else They have significant learning disabilities. Members of staff really understand their needs.”

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 regularly reviewed the care environment to ensure it was safe. Equipment was checked in line with statutory guidance to ensure it was safe to be used. A relative told us, “The home is clean and very tidy; the décor is up to date and appropriate. I think [the provider] meets all [family member’s] needs because they have his care plan which is accurate. Another relative told us, “[Family member’s] home is safe and their bedroom is beautiful. They live in a bungalow which is perfect for them.”

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 which met people’s individual needs. Members of staff were deployed effectively and supported people appropriately. They had been recruited safely and accessed a range of different training courses to maintain their skills and knowledge. A relative told us, “There are definitely enough staff and they understand [family member]. [Family member] gets on with the other people they live with. Another relative told us, “There are always enough staff. [Family member] receives 1-to-1 care and there are always 2 or 3 members of staff around.”

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. Each of the homes we visited were cleaned and well-maintained. The provider had an infection prevention and control policy in place and members of staff confirmed they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE). A relative told us, “[Family member’s] home is beautifully clean and they get to eat the food they like.”

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Administration of medicines was managed safely. There was a medicines management policy in place and the management team carried out regular audits and reviews of administration competence. Our observations in people’s home confirmed medicines were stored and managed safely. Members of staff were able to tell us about what they would do if there was a medication error. One member of staff said, “This would depend entirely on the error. If a [person] has been administered the wrong dose or wrong medication, I would contact the GP or 111 if out of hours to seek advice. I would monitor the [person] for any changes in their physical or mental health and update the service contacted. If I felt the changes were life threatening, I would contact 999. I would also complete an accident/incident form, inform my manager and colleagues so they could also keep an eye on the [person]. I would contact the person’s family to inform them of what has happened. If the [person] has capacity and did not want me to do this, I would respect their decision. If there was a missing signature on a medication administration record (MAR) chart or the medication stock numbers did not match, I would report this to my manager and complete an accident/incident form." Relatives told us medicines were managed safely. One relative said, “[Family member’s] medication is all done safely and recorded.” Another relative told us, “[Family member] s on medication for epilepsy but it has been altered and fits are well controlled. Member of staff understand the risk if a fit was to happen. Members of staff understand the importance of their medication and it is given and recorded in the right way.”