SCC Prison Social Care Team

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been ratedgood.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 78 (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 registered manager understood their role under the Duty of Candour.

The registered manager had processes for dealing with incidents, accidents and complaints. They investigated these and developed plans for improvements. These were shared with staff. The staff confirmed that the registered manager discussed adverse events with them so they could learn from each other.

The provider had a learning culture which was adopted by all staff. When things happened, discussions and meetings were held to explore what had occurred. Effective changes in the provider’s systems were put in place to make improvements. The registered manager told us, “We use reflective practice sessions and group supervisions, so we talk about cases. There are a lot of training opportunities for staff and we encourage them to do these.”

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider carried out thorough assessments of people’s needs, consulting with the person, their representatives and other professionals involved in their care. The registered manager told us they liaised regularly with the prison service and external professionals and had a positive working relationship with them. The service had up to date policies and processes in place. Staff were required to read, understand and follow these.

People were transferred safely between services, so their needs were known and met effectively. For example, one person spent some time in hospital due to increasing health challenges. There was a concern that the prison service may not be able to meet their needs following discharge from the hospital. A professionals’ meeting took place with the prison, prison healthcare and the social care team to discuss the potential that the person’s needs might not be able to be met at the prison in the long term.

However, as it was the person’s wish to return to the prison, appropriate support was put in place following a thorough assessment of the person’s increased needs. This included a hospital bed, personal care support 3 times a week, access to mental health support and access to the GP service within the prison.

There was a concern that another person may experience difficulties coping in the community following their upcoming release from custody. An Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment took place to identify the person’s ability to complete daily living activities, and it was agreed they would benefit from low level supported accommodation.

To help with the transition the social care staff showed the person pictures of the proposed placement and spent time with them to explain the process and answer any questions. When parole was granted, arrangements were made for the person to meet with key staff members from ‘Move to Independence’. The transfer was successful and the person settled well as a result of the preparation undertaken.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They shared concerns quickly and appropriately. The 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 had processes in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse and people told us they felt safe. One person told us, “Yes [I feel safe]” and another said, “100% safe.”

The provider had a ‘Safeguarding adults’ guidance for prisons and approved premises’ in place. This highlighted their responsibilities in relation to the safeguarding of people they provided support to. However, the service did not hold responsibilities to investigate safeguarding concerns, but to report any concerns directly to the individual prisons who would investigate these.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy which was circulated among the staff team. The staff demonstrated a good knowledge of this. There had not been any whistleblowing concerns recently.

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.

Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were identified during initial assessments and regular reviews of needs. Risk assessments were in place, were comprehensive and regularly reviewed. This clearly described the risk and measures in place to mitigate this. For example, one person had poor mobility and had several falls in the past resulting in hospital admissions. Following multi-disciplinary meetings, appropriate actions were taken to reduce this risk and keep the person safe from avoidable harm. For example, the use of falls prevention equipment was put in place. The registered manager told us, “We do have to report any risks, for example, equipment, or someone having a fall.”

It was identified during an assessment that one person was at risk of self‑neglect due to cognitive impairment, falls due to reduced mobility, and communication barriers that could prevent them from seeking help. These risks were managed through a combination of equipment provision, structured support, and environmental adjustments. This included a move to a ground‑floor cell which significantly reduced the risk associated with stairs. Peer support was formalised to ensure consistent assistance with personal care and daily routines.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People were in the prison system and all safety checks were undertaken by designated people within the system. The provider did not have a responsibility to undertake checks. However, they were able to report any concerns to the prison staff for them to address.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development.

People confirmed the staff worked together to provide safe care that met their individual needs. People received support from regular staff, who knew them well and understood their individual needs. People and staff reported they had built a rapport with each other.

The provider carried out checks on the suitability of staff before they started working at the service. Systems in place included checks on new staff’s identity, eligibility to work in the United Kingdom and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information, including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

People said they were happy with the staff and felt they were well trained. One person told us, “They are well-trained and very nice to talk to.”

Staff received enough training to meet the needs of people they supported. This included training the provider identified as mandatory and training specific to the needs of people who used the service. The registered manager told us, “We have a support worker doing level 5 apprenticeship at the moment. We had personality disorder training in 2025, and trauma informed training a couple of years ago. This also touched on PTSD (Post traumatic stress disorder).”In addition, all staff attended Assessment Care in Custody and Teamwork (ACCT) training. ACCT is the care plan process for people identified as being at risk of suicide or self-harm. Staff also received a week-long induction with one of the prisons that covered a range of areas including security, regime, control and restraint.

We saw evidence the staff were subject to regular spot checks of practice, supervision and had their competencies assessed to help ensure they were providing good, effective care to people who used the service.

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 staff received training in infection control and followed safe guidelines.

The provider ensured that the staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) whenever they needed it. The staff received training in infection prevention and control, and this was regularly refreshed.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Safe key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.