HF Trust Bedfordshire

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.

People were safe when staff supported them with their care and support. People had risk assessments in place to keep them safe. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs, however the provider relied on agency staff to ensure staffing numbers were safe. Recruitment had recently taken place to employ more regular and permanent staff.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff supported people to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Relatives told us they felt their family members care and support was managed and provided safely. One relative said, “Yes [family member] is safe. I can honestly say I have no worries about [family members] safety.”

Staff had received training in how to keep people safe from potential harm and recognised signs that might indicate a person was being abused. Staff were clear on how to report concerns both to the management team and external agencies.

Staff took appropriate measures to ensure people were safe from harm.

The provider had suitable adult safeguarding systems and procedures in place. A record of concerns and safeguarding incidents was maintained and monitored to help ensure these were responded to effectively and learnt from. We saw safeguarding training was completed by all staff. Records confirmed that the provider reported safeguarding concerns as required to the relevant agencies.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. One relative told us, “They do support my [family member] to try new things and always make sure the risks are considered so they are safe.”

Staff were knowledgeable about the risks people faced and how to support them to be safe. One staff member commented, “We have risk assessments in place so we can support people safely."

People had risk assessments in place which guided staff on how to keep people safe. For example, how to support people when they became distressed.

Risks were monitored and reviewed regularly, and care plans were updated as people’s needs changed.


 

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. However, concerns were raised about the number of agency staff used at the service. One relative told us about an occasion where an agency staff member provided a meal for their [family member] which was not in line with their dietary needs because the agency staff member did not know the person well. Another relative commented, “I see a lot of agency staff. The regular staff are good, and it would be nice to have more regular staff.” A staff member told us, “At weekends we have half of the staff team rather than the whole staff team, we tend to have more agency staff on shift.”

We raised the concerns with the registered manager who informed us that new staff had been recruited and were in the process of completing their induction plan of training and shadow shifts. They said that at least 5 of the shadow shifts would be completed before staff were expected to work alone. They also confirmed that they only used agency staff that had 3 shadow shifts to ensure staff knew people’s needs and how to meet them. However, this had not been the case where a person was served food which was not in line with their needs.

We observed sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet peoples needs.

Rotas showed there were sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely. Safe recruitment practices were followed for staff working with at the service. Checks were carried out including references and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). Records demonstrated that staff had been provided with induction training and an on-going training schedule for staff was in place.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.