Angelcare Residential Living

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.

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.

The service 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 whilst protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The service demonstrated there were robust processes and procedures to identify safeguarding concerns, raise these with the appropriate agencies, and identify any lessons learnt. There was a safeguarding policy in place. Staff were trained and knowledgeable about safeguarding policies and procedures.

People felt safe within the service. One person told us, “I am safe because of staff.” When asked if they felt their relative was safe in the service, one relative told us. “Oh yes 100 percent, they take care of people there [at the service].”

The service had a good system in place to demonstrate who had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLsDolls) authorisation in place, following the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005. This supported the service to have oversight of individual risk to people and ensured they could evidence how any requirements of the DoLS, known as conditions, were being appropriately met.

The service 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.

We spoke with external agencies who told us the service works well with external professionals to manage risk and support people’s individual care needs. External agencies told us the service are proactive in raising any concerns, following advice and support and following up any concerns as required. We found the service made referrals to appropriate services to manage and mitigate risk to people. There were appropriate up to date risk assessments in place for people.

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 service 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.

Positive feedback was given regarding staffing levels within the service. One relative told us, “Staffing levels are good.” Records that demonstrated there were robust processes and procedures in place regarding the recruitment of staff within the service. Staff had received regular supervision. Staff were appropriately trained to fulfil their role. Staff felt well trained and supported within their roles. Documentation evidenced there were appropriate staffing levels within the service. Staff spoke positively about the staffing levels within the service. There were robust systems in place for the oversight and monitoring of staffing levels following any change in need to new admissions to the service. We reviewed call bell audits and found these were answered in a timely manner.

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.

The service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People were involved in planning in relation to their medicines.

Medication Administration Records (MARs), were not always appropriately completed by staff and medications were given on days contradictory to the “as and when required” (PRN) protocol. The service therefore did not ensure the safe administering of medicines to meet people’s needs.

Medicines protocols were in place for staff to know how to give these appropriately, but some lacked person-centred information. This increased the potential for inconsistent administration and oversight by staff. However, leaders were responsive to our feedback, and we were assured improvements would be made.

Medicine stock levels were correct and well organised. Appropriate levels of stock were evident. Controlled drugs were being stored in a locked trolley which did conform to British Standards regulations.

The service did not receive any negative feedback from people and relatives regarding medication management.

Staff told us they had enough training to feel competent in completing medicines within the home. Staff who were medication trained, were clear of medication protocols.