The Drive

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

The service protected people from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood their role in protecting people from the risk of abuse and knew how to raise concerns about people’s safety. Managers assessed risks to people and put in place appropriate management plans to manage risks safely. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and a robust recruitment system was in place. The service supported staff through induction, training, and supervisions. Staff recorded accidents and incidents in detail and managers investigated to ensure lessons were learnt and to prevent or minimise reoccurrence.

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.

People told us they felt safe and did not have any concerns of abuse. A person told us, “I feel safe and happy living here.” A relative told us, “It must be a while now since [person’s name] went there, they are extremely safe, and [person’s name] is vocal and can tell me things.”

Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had completed safeguarding training and were aware of the types of abuse and reporting procedures to follow if they had any concerns of abuse. They told us they would raise any concerns with the management team and knew how to escalate concerns externally when required. A member of staff said, “I will report to my manager and if they do not take any action, I will report to the chief executive officer (CEO), local authority and CQC.” Staff explained that where people could experience distress, these behaviours were managed safely, without the use of any physical interventions or restrictive practices.

We observed people relaxed and comfortable with staff. There was a friendly atmosphere at the home. There was mutual respect between people and staff who support them.

There were systems in place to monitor and record any safeguarding concerns; however, there had not been a recent safeguarding concern or allegation. There were various policies in place including safeguarding, whistleblowing and duty of candour polices which provided staff and managers guidance on actions to take on any potential abuse including reporting to the local safeguarding team and CQC. The registered manager and provider understood their responsibility under the duty of candour and took responsibility when things went wrong.

The service assessed potential risks to people to ensure adequate support was in place to maintain their safety. Staff had access to detailed risk assessments and management plans which provided guidance on the level of support each person required to remain safe. The service had adopted a proportionate and balanced approach to risk management and respected the choices people made about their care and support. People and their relatives confirmed the service involved them in completing risk management plans and staff supported them to safely manage risks.

Staff were knowledgeable about individual risks and how to support people. Staff told us of potential risks and the level of support each person required to maintain safety. Staff said for example, the service in partnership with health and social care professions implemented continuous monitoring to manage a risk of falling to promote safety for one person. However, for another person, who displayed behaviours that challenged the service, the service had reduced their closed monitoring due to a successful positive behaviour support approach in place. A staff member informed us, they used distractive methods to support one person who displayed both verbal and physical behaviours that challenge staff to ensure they were calm and happy before supporting them with personal care. Staff involved people in managing everyday risks such as when accessing the local community in crossing roads and within the home environment including washing of dishes in the kitchen. Healthcare professionals such as GPs, occupational therapists and psychologists participated in the assessment and management of individual risks.

People presented as comfortable and safe in the presence of staff.

The service had a process in place to safely manage risks to people. Each person care records included a risk assessment which provided staff guidance on how to safely support them. For example, there were positive behaviour support plans in place which included information about people’s health conditions, their history, likes and dislikes, behaviours, triggers, communication, and management measures to support people remain safe. Staff reviewed risk assessments regularly or when people’s needs changed to ensure the management plans were relevant and meeting their needs. Staff had also completed a range of training courses aimed at keeping people safe including health and safety, medication, fire safety, moving and assisting of people, positive behaviour support and risk assessment awareness.

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

People and their relatives were positive about the staff team and felt there was enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to safely support people. A relative commented, “It is always nice if there are more staff, but overall, yes there is enough staff.” Another relative said, “The manager has trained the staff.”

Managers and staff told us there were enough staff working at the service. However, one member of staff informed us where staff cancelled their shift due to sickness or personal reasons, the service did not always seek additional staff cover to ensure safe staffing levels were maintained. Despite this another member of staff informed us, “We are fully staffed now, we used to be short when staff cancel but not anymore and we all work well together.” Staff confirmed they felt adequately supported through training. A member of staff told us, “I am given a lot of training both online and face-to-face and currently undertaking a level 3 diploma in adult social care.”

During our visit, we observed that there was enough staff available to meet people’s needs. We found staff were able to meet people’s immediate needs promptly and supported them with personal care, food and drinks and had quality time to sit and do meaningful activities with people. Where continuous support was in place for a person, we saw that staff stayed with the person throughout and supported them in a safe and personalised way. We observed positive interactions from staff and people.

The service had systems in place to ensure safe staffing levels were maintained. The registered manager confirmed staffing levels were planned based on people’s assessed needs. The provider had appropriate recruitment policy and procedures in place to ensured pre-employment checks were satisfactorily completed for all staff before they began working at the home. These checks included two references, right to work in the United Kingdom and a criminal record check through the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The provider followed their education and training policy and ensured staff were adequately supported through training. The provider had an extensive induction and training programme which included competency assessments in key areas such as medicines management to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills to safely support people. Staff were supported through supervision every 6 to 8 weeks and an annual appraisal. A member of staff told us, “I like supervision because they are like reviews, and they help me work on my work ethics and improve.” The service held monthly staff meetings to update and gather staff views about the service. These meetings gave staff opportunities to discuss issues that mattered in their role.

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.