Sanctuary Supported Living (Hazel Court)

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

We assessed the following quality statements: Safe systems, pathways and transitions; Safeguarding and, Safe and effective staffing. The provider worked with people and health and social care professionals to ensure people’s care was safely managed and monitored. People were protected from abuse and the risk of abuse. People were safe and protected by staff who understood their responsibilities and how to keep them safe. There were enough staff available to meet people's needs. Staff received comprehensive training to enable them to carry out their roles effectively.

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.

People told us they were involved with decisions about their care. They had regular opportunities to have reviews of their care. People had reviews with external health and social care professionals to ensure the service was still able to meet their needs. Relatives confirmed they were involved, in line with the person's wishes

Staff understood people’s individual risks, and how they were to mitigate these. Staff identified and managed known risk proactively and effectively. The provider monitored the effectiveness of this and took further action where it was identified they may not be able to continue meeting a person’s needs safely.

Care and support was planned and organised with people, staff who supported them, along with partners and communities to ensure continuity. An external professional confirmed joined up working took place to ensure the best outcome for people.

The providers policies and processes for safety were aligned with other external agencies who were involved in people’s care journey to enable shared learning and drive improvement.

People told us they felt safe. All those we spoke with knew who to raise their concerns to should they feel unsafe. People felt confident staff and their leaders would take action to protect them from harm, in line with their preferences and shared examples of this, for example, if they did not feel comfortable with an agency staff member, they would ensure there was a staff member they knew well. Relatives also confirmed they felt their family member was safe.

Staff received training on how to recognise and report abuse and knew the processes to be followed to keep people safe. All staff were confident any issues raised with the manager or provider would be fully investigated to make sure people were protected. Where changes had been made to further protect people staff were aware of these and records were clear for staff to follow.

During the site visit we saw kind and respectful interactions between people and staff. Staff were seen to offer people choices and seek consent before supporting.

Health and social care professionals confirmed the provider had procedures in place to safeguard people. Where safeguarding concerns had been raised, they confirmed the provider had taken prompt action to safeguard people and notify relevant agencies, and where appropriate the person’s relative. The provider’s safeguarding policy gave clear guidance for staff about how to raise a safeguarding alert. Any safeguarding concerns were recorded appropriately and reviewed to ensure the relevant professionals were notified.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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 told us they knew staff well, and agency staff were consistent. People told us staff were available when they needed help or support and staffing was flexible to meet people's social needs. People told us that any concerns they had with staffing the provider took prompt action to address this. One person told us, "Management is very good here. I feel that they listen to me." They shared an example of a change that was made with staffing, following their conversation with the manager, which they were satisfied with. People confirmed staff had the knowledge and understanding to support them with their individual needs, in a safe way.

Staff told us there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s planned support and care. Staffing rotas were continually reviewed and adapted to ensure peoples’ needs were being met. Staff said they were provided with the training and support they needed to deliver a good standard of care.

We saw there were enough staff to support people.

Systems were in place to ensure safe staffing levels were maintained at the service. The provider had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits. Records showed that staff received training relevant to their role and this was kept 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.

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