Maplehurst

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

During our assessment of this key question, we found people’s support needs were assessed prior to them living in the home. People were kept safe, and staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. Incidents and accidents were managed safely with monthly analysis carried out to determine trends and themes. Risks were assessed and control measures put in place to keep people safe. Staff and managers told us they adopted a positive risk-taking approach when supporting people to manage risks linked to their care. The home was clean, and safety requirements were completed via environmental checks. People provided mixed feedback on staffing, and we informed the manager of these concerns. Appropriate staffing levels and skill mix was in place, and we observed staff to be visible and attentive to people’s needs throughout the day. Medicines were managed safely, and people were supported to independently administer their medicines when safe to do so.

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 receive any feedback from people about this quality statement for this assessment.

Managers reviewed accidents and incidents on a monthly basis. Staff told us they would record any accidents and incidents and inform their managers.

Incidents and accidents were managed safely. The managers had appropriate oversight and reviewed incidents and accidents on a monthly basis. This included identifying any patterns or trends and acting on these. Meetings were held where staff could raise concerns and share best practice.

People told us they felt settled although their transition had not always been easy due to their particular health needs. One person told us, "The transition was really hard. Since I have been here. I feel settled in here." One person said, "I transitioned here gradually over six weeks."

Assessments were carried out by managers prior to people moving into the home. Multidisciplinary teams also supported people through their transition into the home.

Information gathered from partners before our inspection indicated partners did not have concerns about the home.

There was an admission policy in place, and this was being followed. The service completed robust assessments on young people's needs before they started living at the home. This included regular meetings with the team supporting the person, and visits to the home.

People did not raise concerns about their safety.

Staff knew how to identify signs of abuse and neglect and felt confident following the providers safeguarding process if they had any concerns. One staff member told us, “I would contact the manager or on call manager if needed. I would complete a safeguarding form, document everything that was being said, who was involved, contact the police if needed and support the young person.” The safeguarding lead told us the process they would follow if there were any safeguarding concerns. They explained the process would be reported to different teams, depending on the age of the people supported. They gave us examples of how they worked with relevant professionals to ensure people were safe from abuse and neglect.

We saw people were supported safely. Staff responded and supported people in a timely manner.

There were safeguarding policies and procedures that covered both adults and children. Staff and managers were aware of these and able to explain how these would be followed. In our review of the safeguarding logs, we found concerns were acted on appropriately and the relevant professionals contacted and involved to better support people using the service. Training records showed staff had received training in safeguarding adults and children.

People were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

Staff and managers told us they adopted a positive risk-taking approach when supporting people manage risks linked to their care. Staff gave us examples of how risks to people's care were regularly reviewed, even for activities that happened often such as outings, and explained to us the contingency plans put in place. Staff had been trained in supporting people with their mental health, including what to do in crisis situations.

We observed staff supporting people in line with their care plans. This was done in a relaxed way and people responded well to this approach.

In our review of care plans, we found people's risks were well assessed and control measures put in place. This included contingency plans to be put in place in case of deterioration in mental health. In our review of care records, we found the care plan was being delivered and this was done in a person centred way.

People told us the environment was clean and safe.

The manager told us systems were in place to ensure the home was safe. They were in contact with other colleagues to ensure safety checks were completed and any areas identified as requiring improvements were addressed.

We observed the environment was safe for people to live in. The home was decorated in a homely way and people had been involved in choosing the decoration.

Annual safety checks had been completed. The home was compliant with the safety requirements for gas, electrical and fire safety. People had up to date Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP) in place which reflected their current needs.

People shared mixed feedback about staffing, in particular in relation to night staff. We shared this feedback with the management team who told us night staff received the appropriate training and support required.

Staff did not raise concerns about staffing levels of deployment. The manager explained staffing levels were determined depending on the level of support people required, and this was planned around the support around mealtimes. The manager also explained, staffing levels and deployment changed depending on the activities people were involved in or if their needs changed.

During our assessment visits, we found there was enough staff to support people safely. We observed staff to be visible and attentive to people’s needs throughout the day. The home’s atmosphere was calm and relaxed.

There were appropriate staffing levels and skill mix to make sure people's needs were met. Staff had received relevant training to do their jobs safely. This included specific training in eating disorders and mental health. Staff also had their competencies assessed, including clinical observations on people. Induction work was completed before staff started to work on their own and regular supervisions and appraisals offered. Recruitment was managed safely.

People told us the home was clean and that they were involved in tasks of cleaning the house; this promoted people's independence.

Staff were responsible for ensuring the service was clean and tidy; and managers kept an oversight of this. People were also involved in daily cleaning tasks, and this supported their independence and autonomy.

The service was mostly clean and tidy throughout. People’s bedrooms, communal areas and bathrooms were clean and free of malodours. The manager told us the actions they had taken and continued to take to ensure a carpet in the communal area was clean.

The provider had infection prevention and control policies and procedures in place. Staff had undertaken infection prevention and control training.

People told us they were involved in managing their medication and their competency to do this was assessed by the service. This supported people to self-administer their medicines independently when they were out of the service.

Staff told us they had received online training and their competency to administer medication had been assessed. Some people required a minimal level of support and staff told us the regular checks that were in place to support self-administration of medication, while still ensuring people were safe in this area of their care.

Medicine administration records (MARs) were being used to record the administration of medicines and showed on the whole people were given their medicines at the right time. An accurate record was made when medicines were not administered, for example, when people refused to take them. People’s allergies were accurately recorded. Medication administration records (MAR’s) were updated accurately when medicines were started, changed or stopped. Medicines were ordered in a timely way and their receipt was recorded when they arrived. When people were refusing their medicines, their mental capacity was assessed, recorded and they were supported appropriately. Daily stock counts and weekly/monthly audits ensured people were receiving their medicines as prescribed. People were supported to self-administer their medicines where they are able and wished to do so. The assessment process for self-administration ensured people were able to take their medicines safely however, the risk assessments were not always robust enough to identify all of the risks associated with self-administration. Staff were trained and were assessed as competent to administer medicines safely.