Station 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 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 safety culture, based on openness and transparency.

Relatives knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint. Relatives told us they were aware of the complaint’s procedure. Staff told us they supported people to understand how to raise concerns. This included the use of communication aids, visual prompts, and one-to-one support tailored to individuals’ needs.

We also saw accessible, easy-read information displayed in communal areas to help people understand how to complain.

The provider had effective systems in place to manage complaints and safety concerns. Staff were supported to report and record incidents through clear processes, and records showed that learning from these was used to improve care quality and safety. The registered manager promoted a culture of openness through an ‘open-door’ policy and regular team meetings, where accidents and incidents, and opportunities for improvement were discussed.

The provider kept clear records of responses and outcomes from complaints. This demonstrated the provider’s commitment to responding to concerns transparently and using them as an opportunity to improve.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

Staff we spoke to explained the ways in which they worked alongside healthcare professionals to ensure people remained safe. Staff also told us they regularly communicated with GPs, district nurses, and specialist practitioners to monitor people’s health conditions and respond to any changes in peoples care needs.

Visiting professionals told us the provider worked collaboratively with them when discussing and escalating concerns. One visiting professional said, “When reviewing people and escalating any areas of concerns, we try to establish a broad consensus, assess the person and make best interest decisions through partnership working.”

Where some people had a diagnosis of a specific health condition, there were clear risk assessments and protocols in place. However, it was not always clear what actions were taken following changes with the person’s health. In response to our feedback, the provider sought further clinical guidance from the District Nurse Lead Specialist Practitioner and has implemented their recommendations.

The provider was responsive to people’s changing needs and made referrals appropriately to health care professionals when needed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that.

Relatives told us people were safe and well cared for in the home. One relative said, “[My family member] loves living in the home. [My family member] is safe living there, they are happy.”

Staff had access to both local safeguarding procedures and the provider’s internal policies. They were confident in recognising and reporting safeguarding concerns appropriately. Staff protected people’s rights and prioritised their safety whilst working to enhance their quality of life. Staff promoted an environment where people were protected from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, neglect, and exploitation.

Assessments of people’s mental capacity had been carried out, and best interest meetings were held to ensure decisions made were both appropriate and the least restrictive option. This included decisions relating to individuals’ living arrangements and personal care.

The provider acted promptly and appropriately when concerns arose. Where necessary, incidents and accidents were shared with the local authority safeguarding team and other relevant parties, such as relatives.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Relatives told us they felt [their relatives] were safe in the home.

Most people using the service were unable to communicate their experiences and concerns themselves. We observed that people were included in events and activities, and staff consistently engaged with them in a positive and respectful manner. A relative told us, “Staff carry out individualised activities with people. They try to promote [my family member’s] independence and encourage them to do the things they enjoy. I have seen [my family member] helping to prepare food, they love salad and veg. They go out swimming and bowling.”

Staff told us they were involved in planning and delivering care to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were in place and clearly detailed strategies for staff to follow to keep people safe.

However, we found that, in some cases, individuals’ care plans lacked clear evidence of goal setting and recording people’s progress towards their set goals. In response to our feedback, the registered manager introduced a new care planning format, which included a dedicated section for personal goals and desired outcomes. The provider told us the new approach is intended to promote greater involvement from both people and staff in the care planning process, supporting the development of meaningful goals.

The provider identified and managed potential risks to help ensure the service remained safe for people living there.

Relatives told us they had no concerns about the environment. A relative told us “[my family member’s] bedrooms was clean, tidy and personalised.

Staff reported feeling safe in their working environment, and felt the provider had effective systems in place to manage risks and promote a culture of safety. The environment was tidy and free from unnecessary trip and slip hazards. The layout supported people to move around in comfort. Health and safety audits were in place and regularly carried out to ensure potential environmental risks to people were being monitored safely.

The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff available to support individuals as and when required.

Relatives told us there were enough staff on duty to meet their relative’s needs.

Staff told us they felt confident and well-informed in their roles, particularly when safeguarding people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of how to recognise signs of abuse and how to report concerns appropriately. Staff were able to describe the steps they would take to escalate issues both internally and to external safeguarding bodies, if needed. Staff also told us they received regular supervision, which they found supportive and beneficial. These sessions provided opportunities for reflective practice, discussion of safeguarding scenarios, and reinforcement of policies and procedures.

Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment records showed that all required pre-employment checks had been completed to ensure only suitable individuals were employed to work with people using the service.

People received support in line with their assessed needs. For example, where individuals had been assessed as requiring 1:1 support, staff were consistently available to provide this. We observed people receiving 1:1 support had uninterrupted time with staff, who remained attentive and responsive throughout.

The provider had systems in place to assess and manage the risk of infection.

Staff followed infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures in line with current guidance. During our visit, we observed staff carrying out cleaning tasks as needed, which helped maintain a clean and hygienic environment.

Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and demonstrated understanding of its correct use. Feedback from both staff and relatives confirmed there were no concerns about infection control practices.

However, we noted some areas of the home appeared worn and in need of attention, The registered manager told us these concerns had already been raised with the provider, and during our feedback session, confirmed refurbishment works had since been completed.

The provider ensured that medicines and treatments were managed safely.

People were supported to receive their medicines as prescribed, including pain relief, which was offered in line guidance from healthcare professionals. Medicines were stored securely, and appropriate audits were in place.

Medication Administration Records (MARs) were completed accurately and showed people received their medicines at the right times. One relative told us they were confident their [family member’s] medicines were administered correctly, and they told us how staff would inform them if there were any concerns about their [family member’s] medication.

Staff understood how to administer medicines safely and had completed medicines training and competency assessments. Staff were aware of protocols for reporting and managing medication errors, although no recent errors had been identified. Staff worked alongside healthcare professionals to regularly review people’s medications, ensuring they remained appropriate and effective.

The provider had reviewed and was working to embed the principles of STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People with a learning disability, autism or both) into everyday practice. STOMP is national NHS England program aimed at reducing the inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic medications to people with learning disabilities or autistic people.