Clifton House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating is 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.

The oversight and management of safety events was effective. Where accidents and incidents had been documented, post-incident information was detailed, which included the actions taken by staff and whether the provider and external healthcare professionals had been contacted and involved. The provider reviewed and analysed these events for understanding and learning.

A strong learning culture was also evident in the way the provider reviewed accidents and incidents within staff meetings, to share learning to improve the safety of people and the service.

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.

Effective systems were in place to ensure the management of safety events, safeguarding and care records reflected people’s needs in consultation with external healthcare professionals. Systems were also effective in ensuring people’s needs were understood by staff, people’s care was person-centred and staff were suitably trained and supported.

People and relatives told us they had been involved in the transition process people received before they moved to the service, which included people being able to spend time at the service so they could become familiar with other people, staff and the environment. The provider was able to describe this process, which included obtaining the views of people and others involved in their care, so that this information could be used to develop people’s care plans and risk assessments.

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.

People received safe care and were confident concerns would be taken seriously and addressed by the provider. People and relatives informed us people received safe care at the service. One person told us, "I know I’m safe here.” While a relative told us, “It’s a nice, safe place.” There was a safeguarding policy in place, records showed staff had completed safeguarding training and staff were able to tell us the action they would take if they had concerns. Leaders also told us how safeguarding concerns would be reported to the local authority and CQC, and we saw information in care records which demonstrated this.

The provider understood how to manage and report safety incidents that affected people’s health, safety and welfare. Where people had experienced incidents in which they had experienced, or been at risk of experiencing, harm, these events were appropriately analysed.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). While mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions regarding aspects of care a person judged to be lacking mental capacity to be able to consent to were not in place, the provider acted quickly to put these in place and had safeguards in place to ensure they were not exposed to risks. Staff received MCA training, told us how they sought the consent of people and encouraged people to make decisions for themselves, which observations and care records supported.

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’s care plans and risk assessments provided information which accurately reflected people’s needs and risks. For example, care records provided information which adequately detailed people’s physical health and safety needs. Where people had needs associated with health conditions, guidance was always available to staff.

Staff demonstrated a good awareness of people’s needs and involved people in understanding and managing their own risks when we spoke with them.

The provider told us how they strike a balance between keeping people safe and supporting positive risk taking to ensure people could lead full and independent lives.

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 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.

Staff were adequately recruited and suitably trained and supported for their roles and to understand and meet people’s needs. Staff recruitment records showed staff had been safely recruited. Staff told us they received clear and robust inductions which provided them with the information and confidence they needed to carry out their roles, which staff records supported. Staff were able to tell us the range of training they had completed, which training records supported, and which was relevant to their role and people’s needs. Staff received inductions and regular supervisions with leaders.

People and relatives were satisfied staff demonstrated the skills they needed to provide safe care. One person told us, “Staff know what they’re doing and know their stuff.”

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.