Lowdell Close

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 inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The landlord had identified potential safety concerns with the structure of the building in relation to fire safety. The provider had taken steps to mitigate risks by having fire detecting and fighting equipment in place as well as clear evacuation procedures. This helped to make sure any immediate risk was being managed. The provider was considering long term solutions to this issue.

There were systems and processes to help make sure lessons were learnt when things went wrong.

The provider supported people to access a range of external services and transition between these.

There were processes in place to help safeguard people from abuse and harm.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing had been assessed and managed. These included risks associated with people’s anxiety and distress.

There were enough suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. At the time of our assessment, the provider sourced a high proportion of temporary (agency) staff to support their own employees. However, these agency staff were long serving, with many acting like regular employees and this meant they knew people well.

There were systems to help prevent and control infection.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. The provider had worked with prescribing doctors to review people’s medicines and make sure these were appropriate and met their needs

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.

There was a culture of learning when things went wrong. The provider had processes for accidents, incidents, complaints and other adverse events. Staff understood these needed to be reported and made sure they kept clear records. The provider liaised with other healthcare professionals when needed, to monitor and learn from incidents. For example, they monitored some people for signs of distress. These records were shared with the professionals involved in people’s care so they could reflect on what was working well and make changes to planned care when needed. The staff also discussed any incidents and when interventions had worked well or had not worked. They shared their experiences so these could be learnt from, and this ensured a consistent and person-centred approach to supporting people.

The provider supported people to have safe and positive transitions between services. The staff had developed communication and hospital passports to share with other professionals. These were documents that explained people’s individual needs when using different services. This helped make sure other professionals understood these needs and knew how to communicate with people. The registered manager explained they were working closely with allocated social workers to assess people’s needs and look at the support they may need in the future. This included the registered manager visiting other services and advocating for people’s needs with other professionals.

There were procedures designed to safeguard people from abuse. Staff had training about this and were able to explain how they would recognise and report abuse. There were also systems to help ensure people’s money was safeguarded and any transactions made on their behalf were recorded and monitored. People’s relatives told us that people were safely cared for. Some of their comments included, “I am aware of safeguarding, but again, I have no concerns. I haven’t needed to complain and there haven’t been any incidents’’ and “I think [person] is totally safe there.’’

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider had applied for the authorisations and had processes in place to help ensure people were not unlawfully deprived of their rights.

The risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed and planned for. Everyone living at the service needed some support with their mobility and healthcare needs. The staff had worked with other professionals to make sure they had assessed the risks associated with these and developed plans which would ensure people were cared for in a safe way. Some people were at risk of choking when eating and drinking. The staff followed plans created by external professionals to make sure people’s food and drinks were the right texture, and that they were supported in a safe way. The staff had also worked with behavioural specialists to help make sure they assessed and planned for risks associated with people's distress and anxiety. All risk assessments were regularly reviewed. Changes in people’s needs were reflected in updated assessments and plans. The staff had additional easy to access guidance about some of the everyday risks people were exposed to and how they should manage these. We saw people were supported safely. Staff were patient, careful and allowed people to take their time. The staff also supported people to be independent when they were able to be, for example encouraging people to move around the environment on their own, helping them to identify and navigate risks.

People lived in a well-maintained environment. The landlord had identified some concerns regarding the structure of the building in relation to fire safety. The provider was negotiating with relevant stakeholders regarding the long-term plans to address the concerns. In the meantime, immediate risks had been assessed and were mitigated. The provider was installing additional fire fighting equipment. Existing fire safety systems were regularly checked and maintained. There were individual emergency evacuation procedures for each person to be followed in the event of a fire. Staff knew and understood these. The registered manager had also contacted the local fire authority to discuss fire safety and allow them to familiarise themselves with the building.

The building was appropriately designed to support the mobility needs of people who lived there. It was well-ventilated and lit, corridors were wide and there was a lift to access both floors. There were a number of features designed to support people who used wheelchairs, including low light switches and surfaces. People had personalised their bedrooms and the communal areas. There was enough suitable equipment, including specialist beds and hoists. The staff and external professionals checked these to make sure they were safe and well maintained. Relatives told us they felt the environment met people’s needs. One relative commented, ‘’It is a lovely environment.’’

Staff carried out a range of health and safety checks and we saw action had been taken when problems were identified.

There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. The provider did not have a full complement of permanent employees. However, they had sourced peripatetic (ad hoc) staff from an employment agency. These staff worked regular shifts and most had worked exclusively at the service. We spoke with 2 agency staff who confirmed they were integrated into the team along with the provider’s employees, receiving the same support and information. All the staff, including these agency staff, were long serving and knew people well.

People’s relatives told us there were enough staff and that these staff had good relationships with people. Their comments included, “The carers have a real bond with [person]’’ and ‘’Whenever I visit, there have been enough carers. They are well experienced. The staff realise that [person] needs to have choice and they provide this.’’

There were appropriate systems for recruiting and selecting staff. These included checks on their identity, skills and knowledge. The agency who provided peripatetic staff carried out recruitment checks and training and sent the provider evidence of these. The registered provider changed in 2024. There were systems to help ensure staff maintained their salaries, benefits and rights when transferring to the new employer.

All staff undertook a range of training, and their competencies were assessed. This helped to ensure they knew how to care for people and meet their needs.

There were systems to help prevent and control the spread of infection. These included cleaning schedules and audits of cleanliness. The staff undertook training about infection prevention and control. We saw staff using personal protective equipment (PPE) when needed, for example when administering medicines and when supporting people with their meals. People’s relatives told us the service was clean when they visited.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. The staff worked with prescribing doctors to review people’s medicines and make sure it was right for them. This included working with others to follow the STOMP (stopping overmedication of people with a learning disability, autism or both) principles. Staff had been trained to understand how to manage medicines in a safe way. Their knowledge and competencies were regularly assessed.

We observed the staff administering medicines. They obtained consent and explained what they were doing.

Medicines were stored securely and appropriately. Staff maintained up to date and accurate records to show when medicines were received, administered and if any were returned to the pharmacy. The staff carried out regular checks and audits of medicines management.

People’s relatives commented that they were happy with the way medicines were managed.