Drakes Place

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

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Processes were in place to ensure risks associated with closed cultures were identified and mitigated. There was an open and honest culture within the team, with channels to ensure clear communication. Accidents, incidents, and safeguarding concerns were reviewed, with learning shared on handovers and in team meetings. One member of staff told us, “We learn all the time and we share learning through team meetings.”

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 told us they felt safe. One person told us, “I like the staff, I feel safe. If I have any problems, I talk them through with staff they are always happy to help.” A relative told us, “[Name of person] is so well looked after, and I know they are safe.”

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. One staff member told us, “We know people well, any concerns I would report it immediately to [registered manager], of course they would take action, I could contact [operations manager] or the safeguarding team. I have never had to report anything, of course I would report. I am aware of the whistleblowing policy.”

There was a commitment to minimising the use of restrictive interventions. One staff member told us, “We always support people with the least restrictive option.” Appropriate applications were completed to authorise a person being deprived of their liberty.

A health professional told us, “What stands out most is their willingness to innovate and adapt through creative engagement strategies or their strong multidisciplinary collaboration. Their focus on maintaining a safe, supportive, and enriching environment is commendable.”

People had risk assessments and care plans in place to guide staff. People were involved in reviewing their care plans. Relatives confirmed their loved ones were supported to take positive risks and they felt involved in the process. One relative told us, “[Name of person’s] health has improved and now their needs are being met they have really blossomed. They are supported to take positive risks.” Another relative commented, “I am fully involved with [name of person’s] support plans and make suggestions.”

Staff knew people well and were aware of any risks and the control measures in place to reduce them. Staff told us any incidents were manageable, and they had the right training and support. One staff member commented, “Incidents are manageable we have all had de-escalation training, they [people] have guidelines in place, all staff are aware of them, there’s always plenty of support available. We try a distraction, comfort them, or explain a situation in a different way, there’s no restraint used.”

Risk assessments were in place for areas such as specific health conditions, mobility, personal care and Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPS). We found 1 example where a person with a health condition did not have a risk assessment in place for an activity. The registered manager told us they would complete this.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

There was an induction and training programme in place. Staff had received training in areas such as, first aid awareness, medicines management, infection prevention and control, fire awareness, training on people with a learning disability and autism, dysphagia and safeguarding.

Staff told us there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. One staff member told us, “We are good for staffing.” There were systems in place to ensure there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and safe systems were in place to recruit staff.

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 their medicines safely as prescribed for them. Staff told us that they felt well supported with medicines, and they knew how to report any issues. They had training to make sure they gave medicines safely. They were knowledgeable about people and their medicines. There were arrangements for the storage, administration and disposal of medicines. When medicines were prescribed to be taken ‘when required’ there were protocols in place to guide staff when these might be needed.