89 Hampton Road East

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 inspection 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.

There were systems for learning when things went wrong. The staff recorded and reported all incidents, accidents and complaints. These were investigated and action was taken to help prevent reoccurrence. We saw learning from adverse events was discussed at staff meetings. Care plans and risk assessments were updated when changes were needed. Relatives told us they were informed when things had gone wrong and what had been done to improve the service.

People were supported to access external services in a safe way. Staff had created communication passports and health plans which described how people wanted and needed to be cared for. This information was shared with healthcare and education staff so that all the professionals involved in people’s care understood how to meet their needs and keep them safe. The provider had supported people to move to more independent accommodation in the past when this was right for the person. They had liaised with other professionals to make sure transitions were safe and met people’s individual needs.

There were suitable procedures for responding to safeguarding concerns. The staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures, including how to recognise and report abuse. The provider had worked with other organisations to help make sure concerns were investigated and people were protected from abuse and harm. The staff followed a range of different techniques to help provide calm and supportive care when people were upset or anxious. People’s relatives told us they felt people were safely cared for. People were relaxed and comfortable with staff. They were able to express their wishes, and these were respected.

The provider had made requests for legal authorisations when people were deprived of their liberty and when they lacked the mental capacity to consent to decisions about their care. The provider had worked with people’s relatives and legal representatives to make sure decisions were made in their best interests.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing had been assessed and planned for. People were involved in making choices and taking risks. Staff understood how people communicated and made sure they offered them choices and explained the consequences of their actions. The staff worked closely with specialist teams of experts to assess and plan for challenges to providing safe care, different styles of communication and supporting people with their anxieties. They had developed clear boundaries and structure which helped people to feel safe. The way risks were managed was in line with best practice and guidance for supporting people with a learning disability. This included regular reassessments of risks and making sure care took account of people’s individual needs and personalities.

People lived in a safe, well-maintained and suitable environment. They had personalised their rooms and the communal areas. The home was appropriately decorated and furnished. People had their own bedrooms and en-suite facilities. The provider carried out checks to ensure the building and equipment were safe. There were appropriate systems for managing fire safety and emergency evacuations.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. There was low staff turnover and staff knew people well. Staff undertook training and had information to understand how to meet people’s needs. People did not have to wait for care and staff were responsive to their requests. People were able to choose which members of staff supported them with different activities and events outside the house. They put their requests to the registered manager who tried to accommodate these requests and arrange for staff to work on the specific days people had requested. This helped to ensure people’s need for routine and structured care were being met. Staff understood the importance of this. We saw people had good relationships with the staff and this was confirmed by their relatives.

There were systems to make sure staff who were recruited were suitable and had the right skills for their roles. They took part in a range of training and a comprehensive induction. The management team regularly assessed their competencies to help make sure they remained focused and suitable for their roles.

There were systems to help prevent and control infection. These included cleaning schedules and appropriate laundry facilities. Staff and people using the service were reminded of the importance of good hygiene and were provided with the equipment they needed, including personal protective equipment (PPE). People’s relatives told us the environment was clean. We observed a good standard of cleanliness and staff following good practice, such as washing their hands and encouraging people to do the same.

People received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed. The staff had worked with other professionals to regularly review people’s medicines and to work towards reducing unnecessary medicines. The provider was able to demonstrate how they worked with others to follow the principles of STOMP (stopping overmedication of people with a learning disability, autism or both) principles. They had developed alternative plans to help people manage their anxiety and this had reduced their reliance on medicines. For some people, medicines were needed to help them feel calm during times of distress. There were clear protocols for this to make sure staff used alternative support when possible and only used medicines as a last resort. Medicines were stored safely and appropriately. Records relating to medicines were clear, accurate and well maintained. The staff undertook training to understand about medicines management. Their knowledge and competencies were regularly assessed.