18 Argyle 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

Appropriate systems were in place to investigate accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding incidents. Medicines were managed safely in the home. Systems were in place to recruit staff safely. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs in the home. Risks to people were identified and managed. Staff had completed training and received ongoing support from management. Systems were in place to help prevent and control infections. Management communicated and worked with other agencies to help 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.

Relatives told us they were able to openly speak with staff and management. They were aware of the complaints process and felt that their concerns would be listened to and addressed.

There was a proactive and positive culture around safety based on openness and honesty in the home. There was a focus on learning lessons to continually identify and embed good practice. Lessons learnt were discussed in staff meetings and staff were encouraged to openly discuss and learn from one another.

Policies and procedures were in place for investigating, analysing, and responding to accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding alerts. These policies were also available in easy read format so that they were accessible to all people.

Relatives told us they were informed and involved in people’s care and support planning. Management worked closely with healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They promoted and actioned continuity of care. Staff worked with other agencies to ensure a smooth transition between services.

Relatives told us they were confident their family members were safe in the home. A relative told us, “[My relative] is absolutely safe in the home.” Another relative said, “[Service user] is definitely safe in the home and under their care.”

There was a safeguarding system in place. Staff knew how to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and received regular training to ensure they were up to date with best practice guidance. Staff knew how to report concerns and said that they wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

Relatives were confident risks were well managed in the home and their family members were supported to remain safe. A relative said, “[Service user] is comfortable and happy in the home.”

People were supported and empowered to take risks in areas they wanted to and to enhance their lives. For example, they were supported to use their own money, use public transport and access community centres.

Risks to people were identified and managed to help keep people safe. Risk assessments covered various areas such as the environment, medical issues and falls and included detail about the level of risk and information about control measures in place.

Staff told us how they supported people safely to protect them and reduce the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with told us they wouldn’t hesitate to raise concerns with management and had confidence that the appropriate action would be taken.

Risks to people in the home were identified and controlled. Equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People’s individual sensory needs had been considered. Adaptations and reasonable adjustments were made to enhance people’s quality of life.

Management and staff carried out regular checks on equipment and safety. There were regular checks and a maintenance system to help ensure the home remained a safe place to live. Regular checks on appliances and equipment and checks on safety items such as window restrictors were carried out. Fire drills and regular fire alarm tests had been carried out and were recorded appropriately. Hot water temperatures were checked and documented. We noted that water temperature was not controlled in the home and discussed this with the manager who immediately arranged for these to be fitted.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked well together to provide safe care for people that met people’s individual needs. Staff had completed training in how to support autistic people and how to support people with a learning disability.

Relatives spoke positively about care staff. A relative told us, “[Staff] give [service user] motherly love. [Care staff] is absolutely brilliant. [They] treat [service user] like they are their own daughter.” Another relative said, “[Staff] are very professional and have great experience of dealing with people with learning disabilities.” Care and support was provided by a stable and regular workforce that people were familiar with. This helped people and staff develop positive meaningful relationships.

Staff told us there were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs. They said communication in the home was effective and said they were kept informed of changes and developments. The manager told us, “We are lucky to have the staff we have. They are loyal and hardworking. We have a stable workforce and retention is good.”

Policies and procedures were in place to help recruit staff safely. Checks on the suitability of potential staff were completed. This included obtaining references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and help prevent unsuitable people from working in care services.

Risk of infection was assessed and effectively managed in the home. Staff completed infection prevention and control training and had a clear understanding of infection, prevention, and control procedures. Infection prevention and control policies were in place.

We observed the home was clean and clutter free throughout. Cleaning schedules were in place and regularly completed by staff and reviewed by the management team.

A medicines policy and procedure was in place. People’s medicines support needs were documented in their care plan. Care staff recorded medicines administration on Medicine Administration Records (MARs). We viewed a sample of MARs and found these were completed fully indicating that medicines prescribed had been administered appropriately. Medicines were stored safely and correctly in the home.

Staff were aware of ‘STOMP’ (an initiative to reduce over-medication of people with learning disabilities and autism). Support plans included details of techniques for staff to use when people were distressed. There was an emphasis in the home to rely less on medicines to improve people’s mood and behaviour. With the support of staff, people were encouraged to regulate their emotions and express themselves in a constructive way using calming techniques.

When medicines were prescribed ‘when required’ there were personalised protocols to guide staff when these would be needed. Staff were trained and had competency checks to make sure they gave medicines safely. There were regular thorough medicines audits and areas for improvement were identified and addressed.