S E L F Limited - 14 Park View

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

At the lasted rated inspection this key question was rated as good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant overall people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. The registered manager and staff were very conscious of all aspects of their responsibilities to safeguard people whilst supporting individuals to live in the least restrictive environment possible. People were supported to do the things that were important to them and manage any associated risks. Recruitment practices were meeting requirements. There were enough staff to deliver the care and staff turnover had stabilised and agency were no longer used.

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.

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

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 reported they were very happy with the service. Relatives found the service ensured people were safe. A person said, "The staff always make sure I think about what risks there might be in my plans."

The registered manager discussed how measures were in place to ensure staff understood when to make safeguarding referrals. They worked as a team to ensure people were protected from harm. Staff made safeguarding referrals when needed. A staff member said, "We have daily meetings with the manager, where we discuss the service, any issues that may have arisen, and plans for the future. We will discuss and formulate solutions to any issues, and I always feel my contributions are respected and listened too."

We observed staff worked with people in a sensitive, caring and considerate manner. They encouraged people to be as independent as possible and really encouraged them to reach their full potential.

The provider had safeguarding systems in place. When appropriate staff had made safeguarding alerts to the local authority safeguarding team and sent us the required notifications and reports. Staff said they had training and a good understanding of what to do to make sure people were protected from harm or abuse. Staff said and we saw evidence that they had received safeguarding training.

Overall, relatives told us that risks to their loved ones were managed. A relative said, “The staff make sure [person’s name] is safe but can do the things they want.” People were involved in the design of the care package, how it was delivered and felt their suggestions were acted upon.

Staff understood when people required support to reduce the risk of avoidable harm. The risk assessments in place were very detailed and effectively assisted staff to safely mitigate risks. A staff member said, "Staff are given support and time for their work, risks are kept at a minimum level, and safety is a priority for both staff and service users."

Our observations raised no concerns about how the service managed risks to people.

Risk assessments were in place and assisted staff to identify how to mitigate risks. The registered manager worked with the team to identify where gaps existed and to address them. Risk assessments about care were very detailed and proportionate.

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

People and relatives found there were always enough staff on duty. A person said, "There are always plenty of staff around and when I want to go out there is always someone who will go with me." A relative said, “I visit at different times and never have any issues finding staff, as they are always nearby.”

Staff reported there were enough care workers to meet people's needs and they worked together effectively to provide safe care that meets people’s individual needs. A staff member said, “When I first arrived, we did experience some staffing issues, but this has been resolved via recruitment and we have massively reduced the use of agency staff. We now always have enough staff on duty.”

People appeared happy with the service. We observed there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s care and support needs.

The staffing levels and skill mix ensured people received consistently safe, good quality care that meets their needs. The ethos of the service had changed in the last few years and now people were actively encouraged to spend more time in the community and to develop their independence living skills. The registered manager made appropriate requests for additional one-to-one support for individuals. Safe recruitment practices were in place, and these made sure staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Recruitment, disciplinary and capability processes were fair and were reviewed to ensure there was no disadvantage based on any specific protected equality characteristic. Staff received the support and training they needed to deliver safe care. This included supervision, appraisal and support to develop, and improve where needed. Staff received training around all aspects of care including condition specific training and required courses around working with people who lived with a learning disability and autistic people.

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.

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