The Kent Autistic Trust - 52a River Drive

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. People’s health risks were well managed and mitigated. People were supported by staff who understood their health and support need and completed training in relevant areas. Effective safeguarding processes were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm and abuse.

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.

There were effective systems, processes and practices to make sure people are protected from abuse and neglect. The senior leaders raised safeguarding alerts were relevant and worked alongside the local authority to ensure positive outcomes for people. People and their representatives were involved in all aspects of their care. Relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe. For example, one relative told us ‘[person] is absolutely safe there’. The staff and leaders had taken active steps to ensure there was an open culture. Staff had completed safeguarding training and knew how to identify and report safeguarding concerns internally and externally.

People’s needs were clearly identified, assessed and mitigated. People who had conditions such as epilepsy, were supported effectively to protect them from the risk of avoidable harm. Best practice guidance was followed, and the risks were identified and mitigated whilst ensuring the person was able to maintain their independence and dignity. Staff were able to tell us what people’s health risks were and how they manage them. For example, staff knew how to support the person with epilepsy should they have a seizure, they had a clear understanding of the person’s individualised epilepsy plan. When people communicated their needs, emotions or distress, staff knew how to manage this in a positive way that protected their rights and dignity.

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 were supported by staff who had undertaken training in how to support them, this included epilepsy training and how to administer emergency medicines for people with epilepsy where it had been prescribed. People’s individual needs and care plans were understood by staff. People’s needs were met by staff who had their skills and competency assessed. Staff had undertaken training in how to support autistic people and how to support people with a learning disability, their competency was then assessed to ensure they had the skills to support each individual person. Relatives fed back positively about staff, for example, one relative told us, ‘The staff know [person] really well.’ The provider followed safe recruitment processes, this included ensuring all staff had an up to date Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS).

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.

People received support with their medicines. Care plans clearly stated what support they needed, particularly where there were difficulties in communication. Where ‘as required’ medicines were prescribed, clear guidance was in place for staff to follow to ensure it was administered as per prescribers’ guidelines. For example, people who needed an ‘as required’ medicine for the risk of constipation, there was a clear protocol in place that detailed when staff needed to give this medicine and when they needed to seek other healthcare advice or support. We reviewed medication administration records and when ‘as required’ medicine had used administered, it was clearly documented why it was given and if the expected outcome of administered the medicine had been achieved.