Sahara 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

We found this service was safe. We saw systems and practices ensuring people were safe. People told us they felt safe and others we spoke to were confident in the provider’s ability to keep people safe.

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.

We spoke to people living in the home, they told us they felt safe. They were able to tell us who they would approach if they were worried. People’s voices were heard in a variety of ways, some people were clearly able to advocate for themselves and tell others if things were wrong. Other people had close family who had long established relationships with the registered manager and staff and would talk to them to make sure people were safe. The home also used the services of an independent advocate to make sure everyone was listened to. As part of our assessment, we spoke to people’s family members. They told us they felt their loved ones were safe and they had no concerns about the service. The told us they were reassured as they found the staff really approachable, and they always saw the same staff whenever they visited. People’s families told us they could visit their loved ones at any time without restrictions.

We spoke to a number of staff during our assessment. They told us they felt people were safe and they had no concerns. They were able to tell us about the managers within the organisation who they could talk to if they had concerns including the registered manager and senior colleagues. They were also very clear about other, external professional bodies they could approach such as the police, the local authority and the Care Quality Commission. All of the staff we spoke to talked with confidence about how they would deal with a situation if they felt a person was unsafe. The registered manager told us there had been very few incidents and accidents within the last year. However, one person suffered a fall in recent months sustaining an ankle fracture. The registered manager had fully investigated the incident and was able to explain all of the subsequent actions taken to support the person and minimise the risk of a reoccurrence. We were told the provider was working very closely with the local authority and we were assured the provider had taken all appropriate steps to keep the person safe. Staff told us keeping people safe was a regular feature in team meetings. We saw in the minutes a wide range of areas associated with keeping people safe. Staff were reminded to ensure their training was up to date and to take time to familiarise themselves with the organisation’s policies. The home shared their whistleblowing policy with us and during our visit staff spoke with clarity about what they would do and the reasons why they would use the policy if they needed to.

During our visit to the home, we saw people being supported in a safe way. We noted staff were always close to people they supported without being restrictive in any way.

The provider had effective processes in place to manage safeguarding concerns. Staff understood the systems for reporting their concerns within the organisation and to other relevant authorities. A new electronic reporting system was being implemented, which supported the provider’s current paper based method of reporting. The management team told us they were confident staff were able to use these reporting systems and a senior support worker or a manager could be contacted if additional support was required. All staff had completed their safeguarding training within the last six months. The provider had CCTV installed externally and internally. However, there was no use of CCTV in the communal areas or private spaces such as bedrooms or bathrooms. The provider shared their CCTV policy with us, and they informed us staff are made aware of the use of CCTV before they commence employment. The provider was able to demonstrate how they were operating in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and where appropriate, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards ( DoLS) applications had been made. Any restrictions placed on people were clearly documented with an explanation of why such restrictions must be in place to ensure people’s safety. We found an expired DoLS form in one care file we reviewed. Following our feedback, the provider removed this to ensure there was no duplication or confusion in the documentation.

Risks to people’s safety were well managed. People had detailed risk assessments in place describing the support they needed to manage risks safely. The family members we spoke to talked with great appreciation about how staff manage risks for their loved ones enabling them to do the things they want to do whilst managing the everyday risks around them. Staff told us once the registered manager had reviewed the risk assessments the key worker would discuss with people supported to ascertain their views.

Staff were knowledgeable about the types of risks affecting people each day. One staff member told us about how it was different for each person and risks such as fire evacuation protocols are drawn up depending upon the personalised support required. Staff told us assessments covered a range of health associated risks. For example, people who had epilepsy had clear guidelines in place for staff to follow in case of a seizure. We saw evidence of risk assessments for activities and daily tasks. Staff involved people in managing everyday risks in the community, such as crossing roads and within the home including using sharp knives and other kitchen equipment. Staff told us the registered manager completed the risk assessments which were then reviewed by the key worker and communicated to the rest of the team.

During the assessment we saw a padlocked room outside a bedroom door. The registered manager and deputy manager told us this room had been converted into a wardrobe for the person in the adjacent room. Owing to the complexity of the person’s mental health needs they could not tolerate a wardrobe being in their own room, therefore staff found an innovative solution, using this room as a wardrobe for the person so they knew their belongings were safe and nobody would be able to access them without the person’s knowledge. We saw staff supporting people around the home who required close monitoring. This was done in a respectful way, making sure the person was within view but did not restrict the person from initiating what they wanted to do or where they wanted to go in the house. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Through the use of SOFI, we saw how staff supported people to manage risks such as eating and drinking safely.

The provider had processes in place to manage risks safely. The provider shared their training records and we were able to see that staff had completed a range of training courses aimed at keeping people safe which included such training as behaviour support, medication, fire safety and general health and safety training. The provider was able to demonstrate that all building safety checks were carried out. We noted that important checks on gas safety, all fire equipment and water safety had been carried out by the provider within the last 12 months. We saw an initial front sheet risk assessment with a supporting sheet signed by the manager who reviewed the risks every month with the team. This process allows for further risks to be identified where people’s needs change or to identify where people have reached greater independence, thus requiring a lesser degree of support. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly. The home had a process of having a general risk assessment with an overview of all risks associated with the person. In addition, risks were then broken down individually and assessed with a review being carried out monthly. The registered manager was consistent in reviewing all assessments to ensure the most up to date and accurate information about the person was recorded.

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 had consistent and experienced staff around them to provide support. We found many staff, including the manager and deputy, had worked in the home for a very long time. This had enabled people to build trusting relationships with staff who knew them very well. The staff knew people’s every need and though many did not use speech, staff told us they understood people’s communication and could detect when things were not right with a person. Families told us people were supported by familiar staff who understood their needs. They told us they had confidence in the staff and were able to talk to them and the registered manager and deputy manager whenever they needed to. They told us they received regular phone calls, often weekly, to get an update on how their loved ones were. They also received a written report each month updating them on both the person’s health and what they had been doing. The families we spoke to told us how they observe their loved ones being relaxed in the home and around the staff who support them. One family member told us, “The staff are a great help to our family, having [person] here helps us to get on with our own lives and we know that [person] is safe”.

The home had a registered manager, a deputy manager and 4 senior members of staff in post. The registered manager told us this ensured management presence throughout the day. The registered manager told us the area manager was in the home once a week, to provide additional management support and oversight. During our visit we saw a rota aimed at providing ‘on call’ cover, this was a week-to-week arrangement between the registered manager and deputy manager which ensured staff would be able to get in touch in the event of an emergency. The staff we spoke to told us they felt there were enough staff in the service throughout the day to effectively support people.

During our assessment we observed sufficient numbers of staff on shift throughout the day. We found staff were able to meet people’s immediate needs with such things as preparing food and drinks and also had quality time to sit and do meaningful things with people. We saw people engaged in conversations and involved in arts and crafts. One person living in the home enjoyed playing chess and we saw the person playing against a member of staff. Upon arrival to the home, we also saw people were being supported to go out to different activities of their choice.

The provider had processes in place to ensure safe staffing levels were maintained. The staff team were well established with many having worked in the service for a number of years. There was only 1 vacant post and the home had not used any agency staff since 2021. Staff were supervised every 2 months by either one of the managers or a senior member of staff. The provider had an extensive training package which included all basic training to meet people’s needs. Many of the training courses we saw were followed up with a competency test which gave the provider reassurance the staff member had learnt the content of each course. During our assessment we noted the provider carried out relevant recruitment checks before employing new staff to ensure they met with all legal requirements. This included proof of identification, reference, and the right to work in the UK. Disclosure and barring services (DBS) checks were completed. DBS checks provide information including details about any convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safe recruitment decisions.

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.