City Gate House Also known as Head Office

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

The service had a positive culture of safety. Safe systems of support were in place for each person. Issues relating to safety were discussed by the team on a regular basis with an emphasis on what lessons could be learnt from things that went wrong. The provider also shared minutes of meetings held between members of the senior team where safety was discussed and learning that was gained to embed good practice. The service worked closely with health professionals to support people who can become distressed and guidance was in place for staff to follow to support people with this.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish safe systems of care. People had access to mental health practitioners and community nurses where the need arose. We saw evidence of how people were referred to the service and the information gathered by the provider to ensure a smooth transition was achieved. Plans in place were written in a person centred way and described in detail how to communicate with people to avoid distress during transitions and when being supported to access other services.

The provider worked with people in helping them understand what safe meant. Staff were able to tell us how they supported people to live safely whilst maintaining their independence. Staff were knowledgeable of the different types of abuse and who they should report any concerns to. Staff were able to tell us about agencies outside their organisation they would report to such as the local authority or the Care Quality Commission. Leaders had taken steps to ensure an open culture within the service and undertook regular spot checks to monitor staff practice in supporting people. During our visit there was a relaxed atmosphere with people at ease talking to staff about day to day events and plans. Staff understood what deprivation of liberty safeguards were. There had been recent discussions with the local authority regarding keeping a person safe when in the community.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. People were involved in thinking about what was a risk to them whilst maintaining their independence. Risk assessments were detailed, and staff were knowledgeable about the types of risks for each person they supported.

The provider ensured the environment within the service was safe and there was a regular assessment to address concerns raised. The provider had made recent improvements to maintain people’s safety including a new fire panel and new fire doors throughout the property. All hazardous materials for cleaning were stored securely when not in use. However, there were a number of risks to the outside of the property we saw which had not been assessed. Following our feedback, the provider completed an assessment that highlighted that they had assessed all risks and had taken action to mitigate the risks.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff available to provide safe support to people. The provider’s recruitment practices were in line with legislative requirements with all checks carried out to ensure staff were safe providing support to people using the service. Staff received regular support and supervision and a comprehensive training package to equip them with the skills and knowledge required to support the people in their care.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The service had an infection prevention and control policy and all staff had completed food hygiene training. Cleaning routines were in place that ensured the service was kept to a good standard.

People received support with their medicines. People had capacity and their care plans detailed the support they needed to take their medicines. The provider had safe systems in place for all aspects of medicines management. This included the use of an electronic recording system for administration and monitoring of stock levels. There were risk assessments and processes to administer medications required on an ad-hoc basis. All staff had medication training and people’s medicines were reviewed regularly by a health professionals to ensure the best outcomes for people.