Famille House

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.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Staff described an open culture and told us they felt able to raise concerns, make suggestions and these were listened to and acted on. A staff member told us, “The manager is really supportive and approachable. I made suggestions around a person’s routines that I felt would be better and safer. The [registered] manager listened to me, consulted with others, and agreed to make changes, which have really suited the person.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. For example, staff visited people in their existing homes as part of the admission process, spending time understanding what was important to them and consulting with them, relatives and health and social care professionals. This helped to reduce people’s anxiety during transitions.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately and worked with external agencies to keep people safe. Staff supported people when they became distressed by following de-escalation approaches rather than restrictive practices. An external professional told us, “I am very impressed by the way staff respond when people are upset or presenting challenging [distressed] behaviour. When occasionally a resident has been upset and behaviour has been difficult, staff have de-escalated things calmly and effectively. They do this really well.” Staff understood their role and safeguarding processes. They were confident to raise concerns and felt these would be listened to and acted on.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risk assessments were completed which identified the level of risk and provided guidance for staff on how to support people safely. Staff demonstrated they understood the risks people faced and encouraged people to take positive risks to enhance their quality of life, including going out without support. A staff member told us, “[Name] likes going out by themselves most days. Everyone knows [Name] and it feels like people in the community just keep their eye out to make sure everyone from here is okay. It feels really nice.”

The provider did not always make sure equipment and facilities were adequately maintained in a timely way. We found areas of the premises needed redecoration, including some people’s rooms and a bathroom needed replacement. Additionally, we found several items of furniture in people’s rooms and in communal areas were very worn and/or damaged. Following our inspection, we received evidence from the provider that work had been agreed and put in progress to address the environmental issues. The provider completed regular checks to ensure people’s safety and had protocols and plans in place in the event of an emergency. People were able to personalise their rooms and we saw they moved freely around the premises as they wished.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. A relative told us, “Staff know [Name] really well and have responded to changes in [Name’s] needs well too.” Staff completed training in areas identified as necessary for the service, including training on how to support people with a learning disability or autistic people. A staff member told us, “The most significant recent change is training. The quality of training is much better and there is more of it. We have a good system to complete training on and there is lots of useful information from the provider.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Domestic staff and care staff followed cleaning schedules and procedures to help ensure people were protected from the risk of infections.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Systems and processes to safely administer, record and store people’s medicines were in place. Medicine records showed people were having their regular medicines administered safely. However, some ‘when required’ (PRN) medicine protocols required further information to provide guidance for staff on when to administer. Staff received training in the safe administration of medicines and were assessed as competent before supporting people. Managers completed regular checks to ensure people received their medicines on time and in a safe way.