Steven Lodge

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 safe living at the service and staff understood their responsibilities around safeguarding people from harm. Staff knew people well and recognised when their needs had changed in relation to risk. Risks were assessed and measures implemented to reduce potential harm to people. However, some areas of the environment could pose a risk to people. Some radiators were not covered and not all windows were restricted following guidance. There were enough staff with the right training and skills to support people with their needs, staff were recruited safely.

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.

People appeared relaxed in their home and around staff. People told us they were happy and liked the staff who supported them. We observed people moving freely in their home without unnecessary restrictions.

There had been no recent reportable incidents at the service. Staff had received training in managing safeguarding concerns and processes were in place should reportable incidents occur.

Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. Staff told us they felt confident in supporting people manage their anxieties and understood their needs well. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager. The registered manager confirmed they understood their responsibilities around reporting incidents to outside agencies. There had been no incidents for some time, the registered manager described how any potential incidents were responded to quickly before they escalated further.

People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse. People told us they felt safe living at the service and were not restricted unnecessarily. Relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe and well supported.

Staff knew people well and recognised when their needs had changed in relation to risk. Staff supported the re-assessment of people’s needs so care and support was delivered in an appropriate way to minimise risks to people. Staff could describe the needs of people well and what action they took to minimise any known risks.

We observed some good support where people were involved in managing risks to themselves and in making decisions about how to keep safe. However, some areas of the environment could pose a risk to people which had not been identified by the registered manager or risk assessed. Some radiators were not covered and not all windows were restricted following guidance. We sent guidance to the registered manager about window restrictors and radiator covers. Although no harm had come to people this was an area that needed to be further considered and risk assessed.

People lived safely and free from unwarranted restrictions because the service assessed, monitored and managed safety well. People, including those unable to make decisions for themselves, had as much freedom, choice and control over their lives as possible because staff managed risks to minimise restrictions. Risks were assessed and measures implemented to reduce potential harm to people, this was reflected in people's support plans. Support from other healthcare professionals was sought to manage identified health risks for example, staff had noticed a person had been losing weight so supported them to visit their doctor.

People told us they liked their home and were free to decorate their room how they wished. A person said, “We all choose what we want it’s a big kitchen. In the summer we spend time in the garden." A relative said, “We viewed a few (homes) and this felt like a home from home.”

Some windows were not safely restricted and not all radiators were covered to comply with current guidance. Parts of the service needed repair and re-decoration, there were water stains from previous leaks and some equipment was in poor condition such as the sofa. Some kitchen units, furniture, and bathroom fittings needed replacing and updating which could pose a risk to people as cleaning of these areas would be more difficult.

The registered manager agreed areas of the services needed repair and told us they planned to complete some of the work when people went on holiday to avoid too much disruption. The registered manager asked us for guidance in relation to window restrictors and missing radiator covers and told us they would address this concern quickly.

Although a maintenance logbook was in place to identify and respond to defects in the environment the issue with the missing radiator covers had not been identified or logged and no risk assessment had been implemented. We noticed water stains from previous leaks which had been there for some time. A clear plan for addressing maintenance issues was not documented. Environmental safety checks had been made on the service. Fire safety and cleanliness checks were regularly conducted. The cleanliness checks had not identified broken equipment could pose a risk as equipment would be more difficult to clean.

The registered manager told us they did not use agency staff and staff from the providers other services worked in between services to cover gaps in the rota or if there was annual leave or staff absence. Staff told us they were happy working at the service and received enough training to be effective in their roles. Comments included, “I wouldn’t say breaks, but the hours you do you get time to relax. Its home away from home. If I was on holiday, we have a number of units so staff from other units would come to cover shifts. All my training is up to date. Yes, I like the training.”, “I would say there is enough staff because (person) goes to college most days, (other person) is not that demanding in their care needs. I think yes, it's okay.” And “I do sleep nights, yes my hours are fine, no I don’t feel shattered.”

Records evidenced staff were recruited safely and staff received training to complete their roles. Staff had supervisions with the registered manager and their competency was assessed in areas such as administering medicines.

We observed enough staff supporting people, staff had time to engage with people at their pace. Communication was not rushed, and staff had enough time to support people’s needs. Staff knew people well and supported them in a kind and caring way. People appeared to have a good relationship with staff and were relaxed in their presence.

The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted. People told us they liked the staff. A person said, “They are very good (staff) Sometimes I go out for a walk. Yeah, there should be (enough staff).” A relative said, “They got balance right for (loved one). Where they was before he couldn’t go out because there wasn’t enough staff. Here they can. I have no concerns.”

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.