Sabin Care

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

This key question has been rated good. We reviewed 8 quality statements for this key question. The Provider ensured there were enough skilled staff to deliver person centred care that promoted choice and individual wellbeing. The provider did not document staff supervisions therefore we could not be assured it was effective. Safe recruitment practices and processes were robust.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns around safety when needed. A staff member told us “Yes, the leadership team support our learning and want us to learn.” However, during the assessment, we found failings in the management of the service, which meant the provider did not facilitate an effective learning culture, for example the monitoring of staff training.

The service had not reported any incidents, and we found no unreported incidents. There was a process in place to report incidents if and when they occurred.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

People transitioned safely into the service. The manager and staff told us that there were systems and processes in place to manage transitions safely. A staff member said “Yes, the manager always meets with the person before visits and speaks to them and their family to find out what they want and need. The information is shared with all staff before care starts.”

External professionals were involved in transitions of care. The manager told us the service would liaise with the appropriate professionals prior to care commencing to ensure people’s needs are met.

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. The provider had processes in place to support safe admissions and transfers of care.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

Staff told us they were aware of the process for reporting concerns and felt confident to do so. Staff received safeguarding training.

There were processes in place to support staff to raise safeguarding concerns. Although there were no previous safeguarding concerns, the manager was able to explain the safeguarding process and show us the appropriate paperwork. There was an up-to-date safeguarding policy.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how people's risks should be managed and how to involve people and their relatives in risk management. This was demonstrated in the risk assessment documentation.

People had up to date risk assessments in place with guidance to support staff on how to manage risks. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

Management was aware of the importance of supporting people to maintain a safe environment. Staff provided examples of how they ensured the environment was safe whilst respecting people’s homes. However, the processes in place did not reduce potential environmental risks for example, the documentation regarding environmental risks lacked details.

The provider did not always document potential risks in the care environment. Risks relating to the environment were not thoroughly assessed. Information available to guide staff was not always person-centered and lacked details.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

Staff told us there was enough time to provide adequate care to people and they received support from the service. Staff felt well supported however there was no formal supervisions in place.

The recruitment and induction process were robust however, staff did not receive formal supervision. The provider did not always record spot checks on staff delivering care and although all staff were trained appropriately, the process to monitor training was not robust.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge of infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures. Staff said they received appropriate training and followed IPC processes to reduce the risk of infection.

There were policies and processes in place to ensure the service complied with IPC guidance. Staff received IPC training and personal protective equipment (PPE) was available when needed.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, the medicine charts showed people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff received training in medicine management and felt supported by the provider. Staff told us care plans contained the information they needed to administer the correct medicine. Staff could explain the importance of storing medicines safely.

We were not assured medicines were managed safely, the provider did not complete medicine competency checks on staff and actions taken following medicine audits lacked details.