Huguenot Place

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

This was the first assessment of this registered service under a new provider, and we therefore assessed all 8 quality statements associated with this key question. Based on the findings of this assessment, our rating for this key question is good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. The provider used incidents and accidents as an opportunity for learning and improving the service. People were kept safe and were protected from avoidable harm, and staff understood how to safeguard people. Staff followed current best practice guidelines regarding the prevention and control of infection. People received their medicines on time as prescribed.

This service scored 78 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us when they made a complaint or raised a concern. Staff listened and acted on their feedback.

Managers and staff told us incidents and accidents were recorded on the system, this included any safeguarding concerns or complaints. These were analysed and reviewed to determine any underlying causes and identify any remedial action or improvement actions. Staff told us that team meetings were used to share information about any incidents along with any learning.

The provider learnt lessons when things went wrong. There was a system in place to log any incidents and accidents, safeguarding concerns, and complaints. These were all reviewed by the registered manager and the regional manager for oversight. The registered manager kept a lessons learnt and staff reflections folder which demonstrated their commitment to ongoing learning and commitment.

No residents had moved to the service in the recent past.

No residents had moved to the service in the recent past. However, the registered manager was clear about the admission process including any pre-admission assessments that were needed if they were to receive any referrals for new placements.

We did not receive any feedback from external health and social care professionals, however records seen indicate there were no concerns in this area.

Care and risk management plans were in place for people, and these included any assessments that were received from the referring agency.

People told us they felt safe living at Huguenot Place. Comments included, “Yes, I feel safe” and “Yes, I feel safe in the presence of staff.” The provider held workshops where they spoke to residents about safeguarding and what it meant, including financial abuse.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures. They knew how to recognise and report abuse and were able to articulate how they would spot signs if people were at risk of abuse or harm. A member of staff told us, “Safeguarding is protecting vulnerable adults. We have to follow company policy in terms of reporting any concerns to the managers and CQC.” The registered manager understood their legal responsibility in relation to reporting any safeguarding concerns. He confirmed there were no current safeguarding concerns.

We observed that people felt comfortable in the presence of staff on the day of the site visit.

Training records showed that staff received safeguarding adults training as part of their mandatory training. There was a safeguarding poster on display alerting staff on reporting procedures.

People told us staff supported them to take part in activities in a safe way. They said staff encouraged them to participate in activities in and outside the home. Comments included “When I go for a walk, staff will hold my arm and I’m happy with that.”

There was a culture of positive risk taking in the home that staff actively encouraged. Staff were aware of the risks people might face but told us they did not stop or restrict people in taking part as they carried out appropriate risk assessments which allowed people to participate in these in a safe way. Staff were aware of the signs to look out for and the action they needed to take to minimise risks to people. Staff spoke about one person who was deemed to be at risk out in the community, however instead of restricting community access they had implemented a number of measures to allow this person to do this in a safe and controlled way. For example, this person enjoyed watching their favourite team playing football and they were supported to continue this passion through safe and effective positive risk management strategies.

The registered manager carried out observational supervision on staff around PBS, and non-restrictive practice.

Care Planning and other processes fostered a culture of positive risk taking. Care plans included details about possible risks to people and how to manage the risk. Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) plans were in place, these included detailed information about people’s behaviours such as diagnosis, baseline behaviours, slow triggers, preventative strategies, escalation triggers, crisis strategies and recovery. Risk assessments were written in an easy read and accessible format so that people using the service could understand what their purpose was and be involved in developing them with staff.

People told us they lived in a home that was safe.

Managers and staff told us people lived safely in the home which had been suitably adapted to meet people’s individual needs and wishes.

The home environment was well-maintained, with a good standard of hygiene and cleanliness in people’s rooms and communal areas.

There were effective arrangements to monitor the safety and maintenance of the premises. Regular maintenance checks were carried out to help ensure the safety of the environment and equipment such as fire safety. For example, in relation to fire safety we saw personal emergency evacuation plans were in place to help staff evacuate people safely in an emergency. A fire risk assessment was carried out in March 2024 which identified the home as being at ‘moderate risk’ and a number of areas for the provider to action. At the time of the site visit, some of these actions were still outstanding. However, we received reassurances from the provider and the landlord that these were being actioned.

People told us there were always enough staff available to support them, whether this was in the home or out in the community. A person said, “Yes, there’s enough staff.”

The registered manager told us there was a current recruitment drive to try and ensure the provider continued to meet people’s needs through safe staffing levels. The registered manager said they regularly reviewed staffing levels as some people’s needs had increased and this had necessitated the need to recruit more care staff to support people. Staff told us about the training they had as part of their job roles. A member of staff said, “I’m happy with it (training) , we have the opportunity to book onto additional training.” Staff told us they felt supported by the managers and were able to discuss their job roles in their regular supervision, appraisal and team meetings they attended with their line managers and fellow co-workers. A member of staff said, “Yes, we have regular supervision.”

There were enough staff on duty on the day of the site visit.

The provider operated robust recruitment processes which helped to ensure staff were recruited safely. This included checks on right to work, identity and with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) who provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. Staff received relevant training to support them in their roles, this was a mixture of e-learning and face to face training. Training and supervision records showed staff had access to appropriate training and supervision opportunities. Recruitment was based on encouraging Deaf staff who are natural BSL users and hearing staff who are qualified BSL signers. Staff that were none signing were sent on BSL signing courses to learn BSL.

People told us staff helped them to keep their room clean.

Managers and staff told us they had received up to date infection control training.

The environment was clean.

The provider followed good practice in relation to maintaining the home environment, including risk in relation to infection control. Regular checks took place which helped to ensure the environment was cleaned. The registered manager completed an Infection Prevention Control audit tool monthly which helped to provide assurance around safe infection control practice.

People told us staff supported them to take their prescribed medicines when they required.

Staff told us they had received the appropriate training and were confident in administering medicines to people.

The provider operated effective medicines management systems. The provider carried out assessments in relation to people’s medicines support needs. Where people required support from staff, medicine administration record (MAR) charts were in place. This helped to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. People had medicines profiles in place which included details about their medicine support needs.