SENSE - 54 Monks Dyke 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

The processes in place at the service meant people were protected from potential abuse, the risks to their safety were properly assessed and mitigated and there was enough appropriately trained staff in place to support them.

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’s relatives told us they had regular contact with their family members and felt they were safe living at the service. One relative said, “[Name] is very happy there.” They went on to say, “They (staff) treat [Name] like a human being, she’s a person and they respect that.”

Staff were positive about how they would manage any safeguarding concerns. They were all aware of the provider’s processes. They felt the registered manager and deputy manager would listen and progress any concerns they had. One staff member told us how they would support people if other people in the service became anxious. They said, “We take people away from the situation and whoever is having a behaviour event we would support them. Everyone has a different way of showing they are anxious and we can spot this and do things to distract them.”

Throughout our visit we saw staff treated people with care and respect. There were positive, relaxed interactions between people and staff. It was clear through people’s body language they trusted the staff who cared for them.

There was clear evidence of when any safeguarding issues arose the registered manager had worked with the local authority safeguarding team to investigate and learn from events. The staff training matrix showed staff had received regular safeguarding adults training. The safeguarding policy and guidance was readily available for staff along with whistleblowing guidance.

Relatives were positive in their responses on how well the risks to people’s safety were managed. One relative said, “[Name]has severe multi-sensory needs and has severe learning disabilities.” They told us [Name’s] mobility was ‘progressively declining’ and they required hoisting. The relative told us [Name] had the appropriate equipment to meet their needs and said, “Yes the facilities on site are very good, [Name’s] physical needs are being well met.”

Staff were able to discuss how they managed the risks to people’s safety. All staff we spoke with knew what different people’s needs were. For example, in relation to mobility, one person used a wheelchair for longer distances but could walk shorter distances and needed some encouragement to do this. Staff were also able to discuss people’s nutritional needs, what support each person needed and the type of diet they should have. Staff told us they received regular fire safety training and knew how to use the fire safety equipment, for example, the fire sledge used to support a person who lived on the first floor of the service.

During our visit, the measures we saw assessed as being required to reduce risk for individuals and the environment they lived in were in place. This included specialist equipment to effectively support people to sit safely, move around the service and when in bed sleep safely. One person who liked to spend time in their room in bed, had reduced mobility, they had a crash mat in place and a lower bed to reduce the risk of injury should they roll out of bed.

People had clear and up to date risk assessments in place. There was sufficient detail for staff on how to reduce risks to people’s care. This included how to support people when eating, management of people's skin integrity and how to support people be as independent as they could be, such as when mobilising.

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 we spoke with were happy with the levels of staff supporting their family members. One relative said, “I am not concerned (about staffing), [Name] has a regular team at the moment, there were changes (in the past) but it’s all settled down now.” All the relatives we spoke with felt the staff cared for their family members effectively. One relative said, “Staff encourage [Name] to have their own autonomy. They (staff) give [Name] a choice, they choose which staff they want, even if it is agency staff.”

Staff told us there was enough of them in place to support the people they cared for. One member of staff said, “Yes they (staffing levels) are good, we do send staff to other houses to support them if needed but we are in a good place, majority of the time we can cover any short falls ourselves and we have bank staff to help.” The registered manager told us Sense had ongoing rolling recruitment processes in place and over the last year or so staffing had really improved.

During our visit we saw there were enough staff to support people and they showed very good knowledge of what levels of support people needed.

There were safe recruitment processes in place at the service. We saw evidence of the use of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). This service allows providers to check if potential staff have any criminal convictions before employing them. This allows them to make safer recruitment decisions. We viewed the staff roster which showed there were safe numbers of staff in place each day to support people. We saw when extra staff were needed to support people to undertake social activities, these staff were put in place. The staff training matrix showed staff had received the training they needed to support them in their roles.

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.