Southside Partnership Domiciliary Care Agency

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

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff understood their duty to protect people from abuse and knew how and when to report any concerns they had to managers and staff. When concerns had been raised, managers reported these promptly to the relevant external agencies and collaborated closely with them to make sure timely action was taken to safeguard people from further risk. People were supported to understand and manage risk. Managers and staff assessed and reviewed safety risks to people regularly and made sure people and those important to them, participated in making decisions about how they wished to be supported to stay safe. Care plans were sufficiently detailed and clear, and provided sufficient guidance to staff to keep people safe. There were enough staff to support people with their care and support needs. Managers reviewed staffing levels regularly to make sure there were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff deployed throughout the service at all times. There were appropriately trained and supported staff in place to keep people safe. Managers made sure thorough pre-employment recruitment checks were undertaken on all staff to make sure only those that were deemed suitable and fit, would be employed to support people at the service. Medicines systems were well-organised, and people received their prescribed medicines as and when they should.

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 supported by the service told us they felt safe where they lived and with the staff who supported them. This was further confirmed by our observations of people's positive non-verbal body language and gestures. One person answered, "Yes,” when asked if they felt safe living in their home. Another person gave a big smile and gestured with a thumbs up when asked the same question. A relative added, “They [staff] take all the right measures to keep my [family member] safe,” while an external health care professional added, “Yes, my patients are kept safe at the service.”

Managers supported staff to safeguard people from abuse. Staff understood how to recognise abuse and neglect, protect people from its different forms and to report any concerns to their line managers. A member of staff told us, “I would not keep quiet if I saw anyone we support being abused or neglected. I would talk to my line manager immediately if I had any safeguarding concerns.” Another member of staff added, “All staff must have training in safeguarding, so we all know what abuse is and that we must speak out if we ever see or hear about it happening to anyone we support.” Furthermore, a manager said, “We operate a no blame culture and always learn something and try to improve when any safeguarding’s’ are raised.”

The provider's safeguarding policy and processes were in line with relevant legislation. The registered manager worked well with external agencies and acted in a timely way to make sure people were safeguarded and protected from further risk. People and those important to them engaged in this process and were informed about what action the provider had taken to keep people safe. Training records showed staff had received refresher training in safeguarding adults. There was a “Yammer” channel for sharing best practice and contribute ideas. There was also an internal quality team who shared stories across services to promote learning.”

Relatives and external health and social care professionals told us staff kept people they supported safe and always followed the guidance they had been given via peoples risk management plans. A relative said, “The risks to [name of family member] are managed by staff. An external health care professional added, “The staff understand the individual needs and risks our patients face very well and ensure they stay safe.”

People were able to take acceptable risks and safely enjoy their lives to the full because staff followed the guidance in people’s personalised risk management plans. These risk assessments and management plans were routinely reviewed and updated as or when people's needs, interests and preferences changed. This meant staff always had access to up to date information about the action they needed to take to reduce or manage the risks people they supported faced. There were systems in place for staff to report concerns, incidents, accidents and near misses. Regular checks were completed on equipment such as mobile and ceiling track hoists, to ensure the safety of people they supported. The Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) team were involved in developing guidelines for staff to support people to take risks in a safe way. This meant that people could continue to live and take part on activities in a safe way, with any associated risk mitigated against.

The staff team was well-established and were aware of people's daily routines, preferences and needs, and knew what action to take to reduce identified risks people might face. One member of staff told us, “I support a person who has swallowing difficulties and who is at risk of choking, but I know how to keep them safe because I’ve received dysphasia training and have access to very detailed and easy to follow risk management plan that a speech and language therapist helped us develop.” Another member of staff added, “We always involve the people we support in any decisions we take to try and reduce the risks they might face. Following a few incidents involving one person we support they helped us come up with an action plan which we all agreed to which has significantly reduced this risk.”

We observed staff implement people’s personalised risk management plans during our site visits. For example, we saw two support workers were assigned to support people where this had been assessed as a need and recorded in their care plan. On another occasion we observed staff accompany a person who had mobility needs walk to another part of the building where their flat was located in accordance with this person’s risk management plan.

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

There were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff to support people. We observed staff were visibly present throughout our inspection. Staff were vigilant when people were moving around or undertaking activities to ensure they remained safe. Staff regularly checked in on people who chose to spend time in their rooms or in quieter spaces. We positively noted staff were quick to understand and respect one person’s non-verbal signs to request some alone time and space to enjoy the music they were listening to.

The service was adequately staffed by people who were suitability trained and fit to work in an adult social care setting had been thoroughly assessed. Staff were visibly present throughout this inspection and matched the duty rota for all three supported living services we visited. We observed care staff providing people with the appropriate levels of care and support they needed. Staff were quick to respond when people requested assistance or to have some alone time. These staffing levels were regularly reviewed to ensure there were always enough staff to meet people’s needs. To ensure people received continuity of care from staff who were familiar with their individual needs, preferences and daily routines people were assigned certain members of staff who regularly supported them. There was a system in place for staff to be able to contact managers for out of hours support in case of emergencies, which the managers took in turns to cover weekends and evenings. The provider’s staff recruitment processes were thorough, and records demonstrated that they were followed. The provider conducted thorough pre-employment checks to ensure the suitability of staff for their role. These included checks on prospective new staff’s identify, previous employment, their character, their right to work in the UK 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. Managers told us people they supported participated in the selection of prospective new staff and their opinion about their suitability of these people to support them was taken into account as part of the providers staff recruitment process. Team meetings were held where team members support needs were discussed.

People told us there was always enough staff on duty to support them and keep them safe. One person said, "Yes, lots of staff around all the time.” Another person smiled and gestured with a thumbs up sign when asked if there were always enough staff on duty to support them.

The managers and staff told us they regularly reviewed staffing levels at the service to make sure there were always enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. One member of staff told us, “We always have the minimum number of staff on duty which is enough and if for some reason we don’t because of staff sickness say, the managers will always step in and help out.” Staff told us the training they received was a mixture of electronic learning and in-person practical training courses that were refreshed at regular intervals. This ensured staff knowledge and skills remained relevant. The training of new staff included a comprehensive induction programme, which was mapped to the Care Certificate. Staff demonstrated good awareness of their working roles and responsibilities. A member of staff told us, “The online and practical training we have is exceptionally good. Always relevant to our role and is constantly being updated.” Another member of staff added, “My induction was excellent and I’ve received all the training I need, although I have so much more to learn, but I'm confident that will come.” In addition, staff had ongoing opportunities to reflect on their working practices and professional development. This included regular in-person individual and group supervision meetings with their line manager and co-workers, and annual appraisals of their overall work performance. A member of staff said, "I feel 100 percent supported by the managers and my fellow co-workers. We have an excellent team spirit here and work together well as one big family.” Another member of staff added, “It’s an amazing place to work and I am so pleased to be a part of it. Everyone who works here is so supportive.” There were systems in place for the provider to identify and monitor staff training requirements and ensure it remained relevant and up to date.

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.

People told us they received their medicines as they were prescribed. A relative said, “They [staff] have a system in place for managing medicine’s safely for each person they support…Staff are very on the ball with medicines.” Another relative added, “Medicines are monitored very professionally by staff. I can see what medicines are given, when and by whom as they [staff] always keep good medicines records.”

Staff were clear about their responsibilities in relation to the safe management of medicines. Staff received safe management of medicines training and their competency to continue doing so safely was routinely assessed by their line managers. One member of staff told us, “I’ve received medicine’s training which I have to refresh every year, so the managers know I'm still competent to safely administer medicines on behalf of the people we support.” Medicines systems were well-organised. Medicines were safely administered, appropriately stored, disposed of, and regularly audited by the managers. People’s medicines were safely stored in lockable cabinets securely fixed to walls in people’s own self-contained flats. We found no recording errors or omissions on any of the medicines records we looked at during this inspection. People’s care plans included detailed guidance for staff about their prescribed medicines and how they needed and preferred them to be administered. This included protocols for people prescribed ‘as required’ medicines, which helped guide staff to manage these medicines safely. It was positively noted in accordance with STOMP/STAMP and recognised best medicine’s practice for people with learning disabilities, non-chemical alternative approaches were being used by the provider to help manage behaviours that were expressions of distress instead of ‘as required’ behavioural modification medicines.