Wesley 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

There was a positive and proactive culture of learning within the service. The safety of people using the service and of staff was a priority.

Accidents and incidents were robustly recorded and analysed. Learning took place following incidents which helped to improve the support provided. Action was taken to understand why a person had become distressed or why an incident occurred and what could be changed to prevent further occurrences.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. There was continuity and consistency of care within the service. For example, people were consistently supported when they were distressed. Care plans were in place to support people to have a good day, and strategies were in place to prevent distress.

Staff knew how to safely support people to access other services effectively and the provider had good links with other professionals.

The service worked hard to ensure smooth transitions between services. One professional told us, “Prior to [person’s] move, the management worked very closely with [multiple professionals] to undertake a robust transition plan."

People were supported in a way which protected their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

Staff were knowledgeable about their safeguarding responsibilities, understood how to recognise abuse, and knew what to do and how to report this. One staff member told us, “I would report my concerns immediately to my manager or the designated safeguarding lead, following the service’s safeguarding policy. If necessary, I would document my observations while ensuring the individual is supported and safe.”

Relatives and advocates told us people were kept safe from avoidable harm. Comments included, “I have no concerns; [person] is the happiest they have ever been. [Person] is treated with dignity and respect and is given as many choices as possible over their life.”

Where restrictive practices were being used, they were legally justified, proportionate, necessary and as a last resort. There was a clear commitment to reducing them. All restrictive practices were authorised and recorded in peoples Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards documentation.

Risks to people were managed safely. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People who had conditions such as epilepsy, were supported effectively to protect them from the risk of avoidable harm. Best practice guidance was followed, and the risks were identified and mitigated whilst ensuring the person was able to maintain their independence and dignity.

Comprehensive support plans were in place which gave staff clear information and promoted consistent and safe support.

Professionals and advocates told us people were well supported. Feedback included “Each individual has a team who knows them well”, “[Person] appeared well-supported, and the support received was in line with their support plans and risk assessments” and, “I feel [Person] is very well supported by the staff."

Generally, people’s accommodation was safe, personalised and met their needs. Some areas of one person’s flat were in a poor state of repair and the provider was proactively working with the relevant local authority to address this.

People’s individual sensory needs had been considered. There were adaptations and reasonable adjustments made to enhance people’s quality of life. People were able to have their sensory needs met to feel relaxed when at home.

Environmental health and safety checks were completed, however, some maintenance checks required were slightly out of date, although external contractors had been scheduled to complete these. The provider confirmed a more robust system would be implemented to ensure external contractors were booked further in advance going forward.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. One relative told us, “I like the staff, they are professional and friendly.”

Staff had received appropriate training and staff understood people’s individual needs and care plans. Staff told us, “The training provided is helpful and relevant to my role” and, “We are provided with lots of regular training which includes refreshers, specialised training, qualification training, person centred days and upskilling. We also have a designated training mentor on site who is very helpful.”

Staff received regular supervisions and told us these were meaningful. One staff member told us, “Supervisions provide a chance to reflect, discuss challenges, and receive feedback to improve my work."

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. People’s flats were kept clean and hygienic; one relative told us, “[Person’s] flat is clean, tidy, comfortable and homely.” Systems were in place to monitor the cleanliness of the service including observations and competency checks of staff hand hygiene practices and use of PPE.

People received their medicines as prescribed, and medicines were stored safely and securely. However, fridge temperature recordings were not being carried out in line with national guidance. The manager resolved this immediately following our feedback.

Some protocols for ‘when required’ medicines were missing. We found no impact from this, and they were implemented immediately following our feedback. Where protocols were in place, they contained a good level of detail. Appropriate medicine procedures were in place for when people left the service on visits.

The provider proactively and effectively followed the STOMP principles (stopping the over-medication of people with a learning disability) and had safely reduced people’s medicines in collaboration with healthcare professionals.