Lulworth

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

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff understood how to report concerns and to whom. People were involved with managing their care and support, including risks. Staff were provided with clear guidance to support people safely. There were enough trained and skilled staff to support people. Medicines were managed safely.

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.

There were no signs of abuse. People were supported and included in every thing and independence was promoted in a respectful way. Staff were available to support people with daily living skills in a safe but empowering way. There were sufficient staff available to ensure people were kept safe.

People had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) documents in place where appropriate and staff and leaders received training in this area. DoLS had been approved by the local authority and notifications sent to CQC in line with current best practice. Safeguarding policy and procedures were in place and instructed staff how to recognise, report and record abuse. Staff had access to a whistle blowing policy and were encouraged to make concerns known. The service had a record of safeguarding concerns and a full record included the type of abuse, people involved and description of the incident as well as the outcome and any lessons learned.

People told us they felt safe at the service. One person said, “I like it here and I have lots of friends. I feel safe in my wheelchair.” Another person told us, “I feel safe here, it is my home,” A family member told us, “It's very good. They look after [loved one] well and is supported.” Another family member told us, “I am happy not to worry about my [loved one]. I know he is safe.”

Staff demonstrated knowledge about how to assess and manage risks. Positive behaviour support plans were in place. Staff told us that they understood how to support people in a positive way. Staff told us they had confidence in all managers that concerns would be addressed if raised and felt the culture was good and things were discussed openly. Staff told us morale was good and everyone enjoyed working with each other. There was a good sense of teamwork.

Risks were effectively managed. This ensured people were able to be as independent as possible and enjoy things they liked doing. People were involved to manage risk, whether it was to do with their health needs or activities. One person wished to use a straw to drink with, but staff explained the risks, clearly and calmly so that the risks were understood. Another alternative was chosen following that discussion. Another person told us, "I know if I lay down while eating, or sometime after, I may choke". This demonstrated that staff, where possible, gave people ownership in managing their own risk with certain day to day activities.

Risks were assessed and recorded, along with action staff needed to take to mitigate the risk. For example, risk assessments were in place for specific health needs. Daily records of care showed staff were following actions to reduce risks to people. One member of staff told us, "We record incidents onto Abyss (Incident recording System) and senior staff and managers put things in place to prevent things from happening again."

Staff were available to offer support to people. We observed staff supporting people safely and with kindness. Staff were proactive in reducing and managing risks within the service and out in the community. People were supported to visit shops and restaurants.

Staff understood the risks in people's care and knew how to reduce risks to keep people safe.

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

The service considered people’s needs and abilities before admission to the service. This helped ensure there were appropriate numbers of staff available who had the skills required to support people. Staff received specific training to ensure they can meet the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability. Training for staff included, communication needs, positive behaviour support and reducing restrictive practices. Training was refreshed at regular intervals to maintain staff knowledge and skills in line with best practice. There were safe and effective recruitment procedures in place to help ensure only suitable staff were employed.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people's needs and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff deployed to keep people safe. We observed staff were available to people and respond to their requests for support. For example, one person wished to go back to their room during an activity. We observed a member of staff quickly acknowledge this and supported them back to their room. Staff also had time to chat to people and support them in a calm way.

Staff told us staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs and provide people with the support they required. Staff felt supported in their roles and received one-to-one sessions of supervision and regular training.

People felt there were enough staff. One said, “They are so welcoming and know us well”. Another said, “There enough staff. They are always availabIe, helpful and polite.” Another commented, “Staff are like family.”

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.