The Old Hall

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 lived in a safe environment where risks to their safety were assessed and measures were in place to reduce them. They were safeguarded from abuse as staff knew their responsibilities in keeping people safe, this was supported by effective processes for reporting and managing safeguarding incidents. There were enough well trained staff in place to support people and their 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.

People’s relatives we spoke with told us they felt their family members were safe and protected from the risks of abuse. They told us staff regularly contacted them and kept them informed of any issues or concerns about their family member’s care. One relative said, “Am so pleased [name] is there. They (staff) are great, and [Name] is safe. I am happy to raise any concerns. It always gets sorted. I can email them (staff), and I get regular telephone calls.”

Staff were happy with the way safeguarding issues were dealt with, One staff member told us they had raised a concern some time ago to the on call management team. They told us within 15 minutes the on call team had responded and supported them to ensure the issue was dealt with. The manager told us they ensured staff felt able to report any concerns. They said, “There are posters around (the service), there is a section in the staff one to one forms (about safeguarding issues) and staff are given training at their induction. We use end of shift evaluations to review how people were cared for each day.” The manager went on to say staff had access to a system that allowed them to raise any concerns during any shift using ‘raise it’ forms. These forms were reviewed at the provider hub and then local managers addressed any concerns staff may have

Throughout our visit we saw people were supported appropriately by staff.

The provider had a comprehensive training programme in place for staff which included regular safeguarding adults training, how to support people with autism and learning difficulties. There were clear processes in place to support staff to raise any concerns they might have. Staff told us they had confidence in the managers at the service to deal with any safeguarding concerns reported to them.

Relatives we spoke with felt risks to their family member’s safety were well managed. One relative told us about the sensor mat their family member had in place to alert staff if they had a seizure during the night. Another relative said, “[Name] is safe, and they get what they need, the staff understand them. [Name] gets excited when they go back there. “

The manager told us individual and environmental risk assessments were in place at the service. They and the senior staff on site undertook daily walk arounds to check people’s different alarms were in place and functioning, and fire safety checks. This was backed up with environmental checks by the provider’s locality team who come in to do snapshot audits of the environment. Both the manager and the positive behavioural support manager for the company, told us they worked with people and staff to promote a mindset of using positive risk assessments which they called safety assessments. The manager said, “We encourage positive risk taking as we have a younger group of people here who we want to develop.” They encourage staff to look at what they could do safely rather than not doing an activity with the people they supported. This included supporting people to improve their mobility. One person who had in the past used a hoist to move had now been supported to use a Sara steady to help them move. Another person had been encouraged and supported to use public transport for the first time in their life. Staff told us they had access to people's risk assessments. One staff member said, “Everyone (staff) has a staff meeting once a month and individuals are discussed.” They went on to say, “We also have senior meetings to share our experiences, review things that have happened and how they were handled.”

Throughout our visit we saw the assessed measures to reduce the risk to people’s safety were in place. People who required water isolators in their rooms or alarms in their apartments or rooms to alert staff to any safety issues had these in place. One person who had food allergies had their cutlery, crockery and food kept separate from other people in locked drawers and cupboards. People had the required level of support both when in the service and when going out on an activity.

Risks to people’s safety were clearly identified in their care records. The provider’s electronic system allowed staff to view people’s needs and the measures in place to support those needs, via computers and staff’s handheld electronic devices. Staff could quickly access information on all aspects of people’s needs. For example, a large number of people living at the service suffered with seizures, the information in people’s records was individualised showing how staff should support each person to safely manage their condition.

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’s relatives told us they felt their family members were supported by enough staff. One relative said, “The core staff know [Name] really well and understand them. When I visit (there is) always enough staff, [Name] gets 1`to 1 staff.”

Staff feedback about staffing was positive. One staff member said, “(The staffing levels) are better at the minute, we have had an influx of new staff.” Another member of staff told us when they had raised concerns about staffing levels at a particular time of day, the management team had listened and made changes to the roster. Another staff member told us all the services at Home from Home worked together effectively to keep staffing safe, by sharing staff when needed. Staff were also positive about the training for new staff, they felt it had improved. A member of staff said, “They (new staff) do an intensive 3 week training course at the hub before coming to the home and we support them with mentors on site.” A relatively new member of staff said, “The training was excellent I am very pleased on how the training prepared me for the job.”

During our visit to the service we saw people were supported by sufficient numbers of staff. Some people were being supported to attend a group event at the provider’s community hub, other people were supported by their designated support staff in the communal areas of the service or in their own rooms or apartments, dependent on their choice.

The provider training programme included training on all aspects of care and included Autism awareness, NAPPI (non-abusive psychological and physical intervention) training, safeguarding adults and an introduction to epilepsy. Staff were also provided with extra training when people in their care had specific health care needs to support staff safely manage those needs. Staff undertook shadow shifts with staff on site and had mentors allocated to support them during their induction period. The provider had a central resource management team who worked with the managers on site to ensure staffing at the service incorporated people undertaking, appointments, social activities and home visits. There were weekly planning meetings where a wide range of staff issues were discussed to ensure the staffing levels were safe and effective.

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.

People’s relatives were happy with the care their relative received. One relative said, “(The) service is brilliant, and [name] is safe. They inform me of medication reviews and outcomes of appointments.”

Both staff and managers told us staff received robust training to support them to administer medicines safely. Staff told us there was good support for them if they had made any errors. They would need to retake their medicines training and have their competences assessed before they could administer medicines again.

Our observations of the administration and management of medicines showed there were good processes in place to ensure medicines were administered, managed and stored safely. There were clear accessible policies and procedures for staff to follow. Regular auditing of medicines and follow up actions were completed when issues were found.