Ladies In Waiting

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.

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 their care and support was managed and provided safely. A person told us, “Very safe, definitely.” Relatives echoed these sentiments. A relative said, “Yes very safe. We think a lot of the carers and the carers think a lot about us.” We also saw written feedback that people said staff made them feel safe.

Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. Staff demonstrated they were skilled at recognising when people were at risk of potential harm and knew how to respond appropriately. Staff told us they felt comfortable to report unsafe practice and had confidence that any concerns they raised would be listened to and action taken by the registered manager.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider had suitable safeguarding systems and procedures in place. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. The registered manager maintained and monitored records of concerns to ensure these were responded to effectively and learnt from. We saw all staff completed safeguarding training and regular refresher courses.

The service involved people and their relatives when managing risks. People told us staff involved them in creating risk assessments. A person told us “They involve me in my care, they always ask me.”

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Staff told us they were provided with information they needed to support people safely. Risk assessments were detailed, evidenced the involvement of people and addressed different hazards including falls, skin and mobility risk assessments.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. There was a robust system for reviewing and updating documents to take account of any changes in people's risks. Care plans demonstrated that people and their relatives had been involved in the planning process and subsequently the 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.

People and relatives felt they were supported well by trained and competent staff. A relative told us, “They feel like friends. [Family member] has 2 main carers. They really look after [family member], they go above and beyond. I’m confident they arrive on time and stay the required time. Sometimes they stay longer than required.” Another relative said, “If it is an emergency, they will step in. They understand, they are patient. It is really reassuring.”

Calls was well planned to ensure care was delivered on time by staff who knew people well. The provider liaised with staff before care commended to ensure the carer and person was well suited. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals and felt very well supported by the registered manager. Staff told us the mandatory training was sufficient. A staff member told us “We are all trained, and all have regular competency checks,” another staff member said, “We do mandatory training when required and have regular shadowing on visits.”

The provider made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received thorough support, supervision and strong development opportunities. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff completed a thorough induction. The service had an appropriately robust recruitment process to ensure positions were offered to suitable applicants. These included establishing their employment history and reference checks as well as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. This protected people from receiving support from unsuitable staff.

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.