Precious Homes East London

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 supported by regular staff who were safely recruited and who had the relevant training and qualifications to support them safely. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff understood how to protect and safeguard people. Risk assessments had been carried out to identify the risks people faced. These included information about how to mitigate those risks.

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 and their relatives told us they felt safe whilst being supported by staff. One relative said, "[Person] is non-verbal but that doesn’t mean [person] doesn’t communicate their needs. I know [person] is safe because [person] wants to go there. I can turn up whenever I want to. I’ve never walked into a bad situation.” Another relative told us, “[Person] is safe in that nothing has happened to them. I have taken [person] out with carers, and I would take the lead there.”

Staff and the registered manager demonstrated knowledge of the safeguarding processes in place to keep people safe. The staff we spoke to all stated that if they had concerns they would talk to their manager. Staff knew about the internal systems for reporting if the manager could not be contacted and were able to tell us about people outside of the organisation, such as the Care Quality Commission and local authority social work team as examples of others to talk to. Staff were able to describe what whistleblowing meant and who they would report if they needed to follow this procedure. The staff we spoke to were able to describe the various forms of abuse and what this might look like if it occurred. The registered manager told us about the importance of safeguarding training for the staff team and how they work alongside staff to assess staff practice when supporting people in the service. All of the staff we spoke to told us when things go wrong they reflect on what happened, seeking ways to ensure as far as possible there is no repeat and learn from each event.

The provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place. These advised staff on what to do if they had concerns about the welfare of any of the people, they were providing care and support to. The provider also had a whistleblowing policy in place, and this gave guidance to staff on how they could raise concerns about any unsafe practice. A whistle blower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organisation. Incidents or accidents in people’s home were reported to help learn lessons. The provider had a policy for staff to follow should things go wrong. The management team reviewed incidents and took action to keep people safe. They undertook an analysis of incidents and accidents each month to identify trends and put in place measures to prevent re-occurrence in future.

People and their relatives were involved in the delivery of care and support being offered. This included the management of potential risks. One relative said, “I am involved. I have had to agree to an operation, and I have been supporting them to take [person] to medical appointments.” Care plans and risk assessments were person centred and aimed to provide positive outcomes for people. For example, where people wished to undertake specific activities, they were supported to complete these activities as independently as possible.

Sufficient risk assessments were in place to ensure people received safe care. The registered manager told us about the processes for managing risks. They told us how risk assessments are produced and how they ensure all staff read and understand what is written. The registered manager told us how they check staff knowledge by asking direct questions in relation to the risks. The registered manager told us about the process for reviewing risks, either at set times or if there was a change to the risk. Staff were aware of potential risks to people and ensured they were safe when carrying out any tasks. One staff said, “We will do health and safety checks, talk to people, and give them options. To minimise the risk, we will show them [people] pictures and use simple words for them to understand.” The registered manager also had an environmental risk assessment in place which identified potential risks and how to minimise them. This helped to ensure people received care and support within a safe environment.

People had risk assessments and risk management plans to minimise the risks they may face at home and in the community. Areas covered in the risk assessments included, health, self-administering of medicines, managing health appointments, sexuality, missing persons, fire and personal emergency evacuation, eating and drinking, accessing the community, using transport systems and personal care. People had positive behaviour support plans to guide staff when their behaviour became unpredictable due to distress or anxiety. The guidance included triggers for staff to be aware of and to try to avoid, preventative measures and reactive strategies for staff to use. Physical intervention was documented to be used as a last resort if there was a risk of harm to the person. Where people lacked capacity they had a DoLS authorisation in place or their application was with the Court of Protection awaiting authorisation.

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

Relatives were complimentary of the staff who cared for their loved ones. One relative told us, “Yes of course. [Person] is very happy there. I think they are marvellous with [person]. Same staff are supporting [person]. They take [person] out for their activities.” Relative told us staff understood their needs and had the ability to carry out their job. One relative said, “They [staff] meet [person] needs. They all seem to know [person] extremely well.”

Staff rotas had been planned to ensure people were supported by a regular team of staff so that the care and support they received was consistent. One staff said, “Yes there are enough staff here, we have 2:1 at times in the day, 1-2-1 during parts of the day.” We observed there were enough staff present to support people safely with day-to-day activities and social engagements. The registered manager told us how a successful recruitment campaign had reduced the vacancy level and the need to use agency staff. We were told that there was six people in the process of going through employment checks which would significantly reduce the vacancy level. The registered manager told us when there is a need to use agency they ensure they use the same people to work in the service to help guarantee consistency.

The service had enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Rotas showed each person was allocated 1 or 2 dedicated staff members during day hours according to their needs and whether they were going out in the community. Staff working the night shift were awake and allocated to 1 or 2 people. The provider had a safe recruitment procedure in place including carrying out checks on applicants before they began employment. The checks included identification, health, references, right to work in the UK and criminal records. New staff received a 14-day induction which included e-learning, face to face training and shadowing experienced staff on shift at the service. Induction training also included positive behaviour support and light touch physical intervention manoeuvres to prevent a person becoming harmed.

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.