Hope House

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

We found this SARC was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance. We assessed five quality statements from Safe. Staff were trained and competent and had the right skills to meet patient’s needs. At the last inspection we found there was not an effective risk management system, and care and treatment records were not always contemporaneous. We had also identified that there were not sufficient numbers of staff, including the availability of medical advice for staff when needed. During this assessment we found an effective risk management system and contemporaneous record keeping. The environment was safe, well maintained, clean and met patient’s needs. Leaders ensured the correct staffing levels when needed to keep patients safe, there was access to medical advice and there were now safe systems, pathways and transitions in place.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Learning culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

Staff followed protocols to prioritise the safety and wellbeing of patients. The views of patients who use the service, partners and staff are listened to and taken into account.

Staff had effective systems to identify, manage and mitigate risks. These processes were monitored. Pathways ensured a joined-up approach with staff and other partners in care.

The judgement for Safeguarding is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

Staff were confident in assessing individual patient’s needs and responding to any identified risks to ensure the patient was kept safe. Staff had access to specially trained professionals such as Doctors on call to support them in responding to individual patient’s needs. There was learning from incidents which had informed care pathways.

There was guidance on identifying and responding to individual patient’s risks. Patient’s records showed risk assessments had been completed and had informed the care and support provided to the individual patient. A contemporaneous record of care and treatment was now kept. Records were analysed and any gaps in assessments or actions, or delays in recording care were responded to promptly.

Staff had access to all the equipment they needed and had received training in its use. Equipment was regularly checked. Patients were kept safe whilst receiving care.

The facilities were well maintained. Although the environment had been assessed for risks, we saw that there was a window blind which could be a potential ligature and infection risk. We advised the provider that they should take action to make the blind safe. We saw evidence that the provider had taken immediate action to replace the blind with an opaque window film. In relation to a freezer there was insufficient mitigation to alert staff of an outage. We saw evidence that the provider had taken immediate action to obtain an alarm to alert staff.

There were systems to monitor the safety of equipment and the environment. Following our last inspection, we saw there had been changes to the environment, for example they had removed the potential ligature risk, there were records of environmental checks, staff tested equipment and there were improvements in the safety of the environment. We saw learning from incidents with changes in the environment and guidelines for staff when a patient was in the building. These changes had reduced risk for patients. Staff wore personal protective equipment and stored equipment in line with guidance for the SARC.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available and there are always arrangements in place for staff to access medical advice if needed. Following our last inspection when not all staff were up to date with mandatory training or role specific training, we saw that staff were now up to date with mandatory training and role specific training or education. They had effective supervision, staff felt they were well supported.

Following our last inspection, we saw staffing rotas with sufficient numbers of staff and access to on call medical advice. Records showed there were enough staff for the service, with the right training and skills to care and support people accessing the SARC. Training records showed mandatory, and role specific training had been completed.

There are clear roles and responsibilities around infection prevention and control. Staff understood and carried out what was required of them.

There was evidence of completed cleaning logs and checks as set out in the SARC’s guidance. There were visual prompts as to what personal protective equipment was to be worn by staff in which room. Following our last inspection the environment and equipment were visibly clean, which was an improvement from our last inspection, where we observed some areas had been visibly dirty.

Guidance is set and followed as to how to clean the environment. There are systems to ensure cleaning is of the required standard with monitoring by external partners such as the Forensic Capability Network and the Police

The judgement for Medicines optimisation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.