197 Bagnall Road

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 8 quality statements in the safe key question and found areas of good practice. Our rating for the key question is good. People were supported to understand safeguarding and how to raise concerns when they did not feel safe. Staff understood their duty to protect people from abuse and knew how and when to report any concerns they had to managers. At the time of this assessment there had been no incidents that required reporting however the staff and management team were clear on action they would take, would report these promptly to the relevant agencies and work proactively with them, to make sure timely action was taken to safeguard people from further risk. People’s involvement in care planning was not always documented clearly but people told us managers assessed and reviewed safety risks to people and made sure people, and those important to them, were involved in making decisions about how they wished to be supported to stay safe. There were enough staff to support people with their needs. Staff received relevant training to meet the range of people’s needs at the service. Staff received support through supervision to support their continuous learning and improve their working practice. Managers made sure recruitment checks were undertaken on all staff to ensure only those individuals that were deemed suitable and fit would be employed to support people at the service.

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 spoke with people about if they felt the provider had a positive safety culture, responded in an open and honest way when concerns were raised and lessons were learnt to improve the service they received. One person told us, "Yes, they do their best to correct things." People felt able to speak up if they had a concern. They also felt improvements would be made to their care if needed.

The provider told us they worked in a way that was open and honest and considered their duty under the Duty of Candour. They told us, “We act on concerns immediately, we are honest with the client. If anything goes wrong, we apologise and do anything to ensure it doesn’t repeat again.”

The provider worked in a way that promoted a proactive approach towards safety. What to do in the event of an emergency was discussed regularly in staff team meetings to ensure they were familiar with how to manage this. Training was provided to staff, discussed with staff and promoted to support embedding good practice. There was a clear policy on the duty of candour. This policy guided staff to tell the person, or where appropriate their advocate, when something had gone wrong.

People told us the provider worked with them to ensure continuity of care. One person we spoke with told us about their experience of moving to being supported by the provider. “Yes, they did an assessment with me, I wanted somebody quite quickly and they were recommended to me and I was really happy with them. I can’t ask for better care.”

We spoke with the registered manager about how they would ensure continuity of care for a person moving between services. They told us, "We know quite a lot about our clients’ care and I would volunteer to share this information appropriately. If there are things we need to flag up we will as we want things to go right for this client." Staff had good knowledge of which health and social care professionals supported which people and what type of support they offered. Staff knew how to monitor people’s health conditions, to ensure timely referrals were made to other services. For example, a person living with epilepsy and how to respond to the person experiencing a seizure and when to contact emergency services.

We did not receive any feedback from partners raising concerns regarding this area.

The provider completed an assessment with people before they started being supported, we reviewed one of the assessments and found it to be incomplete. This meant that information required to ensure continuity of care might not get included in care planning documents. However, this had not negatively impacted on the person’s care. The registered manager was clear that they would reassess and review all documentation for people should there have been a change to their care, or where they had been into hospital.

People told us they felt safe from abuse, they felt safe being supported by staff and they felt they were kept safe from potential harm and abuse. One person told us, "They do, they really do, they go above and beyond and really keep me safe and look after me."

Staff understood how to respond to allegations of abuse. Staff told us that they had no concerns, but if they did, they were confident the management team would act appropriately. Staff were confident in using whistleblowing processes if they felt concerns were not being responded to. One staff member told us, “I keep people safe from harm and neglect by following care plans; ensuring their physical safety by maintaining a safe environment; regular monitoring; supporting with daily tasks; raising and reporting concerns.” The registered manager understood how to respond to allegations of abuse. They had a clear process of how to investigate and keep people safe. Staff knew where to find the safeguarding policy. They were aware of the policy guidance and knew how to follow it to keep people safe from potential abuse.

The provider had an up to date policy on safeguarding and whistleblowing to support staff to understand safeguarding and how and who to report concerns to including external agencies. Staff received safeguarding training and could access policy and procedures.

People told us they were involved to manage risks, had been involved in the assessment process and planning for their care and were enabled to do things for themselves. One person said, "Somebody came out and assessed me then said yes they could help me. I had to know and see them first so I knew what they could offer me."

The management team told us how people were involved in their care planning process and risk assessment. They understood people’s holistic care needs including how people communicated their needs and expressed their feelings. They told us, “We recognise [description of a behaviour] as a distress behaviour and that the person is communicating that they are lonely or unhappy.”

People’s care plan records did not always contain risk assessments relevant to their care needs. For example, one person was noted to be at risk of falls, but a robust risk assessment had not been completed. This was discussed with the provider at the time and they addressed this. This had not negatively impacted on the person’s care. Staff kept clear records on how they had supported people and at what time. This allowed changes in a person’s needs to be identified and improvements made to their planned care.

People felt they were effectively supported to maintain a safe home environment. They told us that staff supported them to keep their home clean and to ensure any equipment they needed was available and ready for use.

The management team were able to provide examples of actions they had taken to improve the safety of people’s environment including supporting people to be assessed for equipment. The provider also told us that they planned for emergency situations including heatwave The registered manager told us, “We send a message to all staff, the weather is going to be hot, look after yourself, drink plenty, encourage clients to drink and ensure drinks are beside them.”

We reviewed documents completed by the management team which showed that an assessment of the safety of both the internal and external environment of people’s homes had been completed prior to care commencing. This supported not only keeping people safe but also staff.

People supported did not communicate any concerns regarding the effectiveness of the staff, their level of skills or training. One person told us, “I can’t speak highly enough of them.”

Staff told us they received an induction when they started working for the provider, had training, and that they also had support from the management team through supervision. One staff member told us, "Yes, I have the right training and support to carry out my role." Staff told us they had regular opportunities to meet their manager on a one-to-one basis and as a team. These meetings gave them the opportunity to feedback about their experiences and request further guidance and training if needed.

The provider ensured staff had access to training, their competency to carry out their role safely was assessed, and they received ongoing support. When recruiting staff the provider sought references and carried out a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check as part of a safe recruitment process. Employers can check the criminal record of someone applying for a role. This is known as getting a DBS check. The recruitment process was discussed with the provider as we found some improvements could be made in relation to record keeping.

People felt they received the right support to maintain a clean and hygienic environment including support with doing the washing. People also told us about the support they received with their personal care to ensure they were able to stay clean and fee from infection or skin issues. One person said, “They give me a wash or shower whatever, I do need them to help me and they see to all that.”

Staff didn’t raise any concerns about infection prevention and control. The management team told us about how they approach this subject through training. They told us, “We give examples as part of training, you know the person could get an infection. What do you do?”

The provider had an appropriate policy relating to infection prevention and control (IPC) and staff received training in IPC. Support people required to maintain their personal hygiene and cleanliness in their home was documented in their care plan.

Not everyone receiving care needed support with medicines but those that did had no concerns about the support they received.

Staff told us they had received training on supporting people with medicines and that their competency was checked. One staff member said, “My manager conducts a medication competency assessment for me to ensure that I am competent to carry out medication administration.”

The provider had included people’s support needs for medicines in care planning, medicines recording records were reviewed by the management team and there was a policy in place to guide staff practice. Staff had received training on how to administer medicines safely. The management team had assessed the staff’s competency, to ensure they were following best practice.