Shila House

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 and relatives told us they felt safe living at Shila House. There were processes in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff understood safeguarding and how to report any concerns. Risks were well managed, and guidance provided to staff on how to minimise risk. Medicines were well managed, and people received their medicines safely and on time. People were involved in reviews of their medicines. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet people’s 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.

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.

Accidents and incidents were well documented including immediate actions taken, outcomes and any learning.

People were kept safe from the risk of harm and abuse. Relatives consistently told us they felt people were safe and staff knew how to ensure people’s safety. A relative said, “I believe [person] is safe, if she wasn’t she would tell.” People were encouraged to report any concerns and reminded what safeguarding was and how to report during regular resident meetings.

Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to recognise and report any concerns of abuse. Any safeguarding concerns were raised in a timely way to the local authority and CQC informed.

The registered manager told us, and we saw, that risks were thoroughly assessed, and appropriate guidance was given to staff on how to minimise risk. This included triggers for people’s mental health, physical health conditions and environmental risks. Where there were any changes to people’s risks, risk assessments were updated immediately.

There were regular checks of the fire alarm system and equipment. People were involved in fire drills to ensure they were able to evacuate the premises in the event of a fire. There were regular checks of the building, environment and equipment to make sure people were kept safe.

Staff and the registered manager were visible and available around the service. We saw people approaching them freely to discuss any issues or concerns they had.

People were involved in planning their care including managing risks which may affect their health and well being.

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

Staff were recruited safely. Staff files showed 2 written references, an application form with any gaps in employment explored, proof of identity and a Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS). This informs the service if a prospective staff member has a criminal record or has been judged as unfit to work with vulnerable adults.

People appeared to know staff well. We observed people interacting with staff in a comfortable manner and were able to chat and ask for anything they needed.

The registered manger told us they could increase staff numbers if people needed extra help. For example, to attend appointments or if someone was becoming unwell. The service did not use agency staff and there was a low turnover of staff. This meant people were able to build good working relationships with staff.

There were enough staff to ensure people’s care and support needs were met. All staff employed by the service had previous experience of working in care.

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.

Staff ensured people’s behaviour was not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines. Where people were prescribed medicines to be given ‘as needed’ for anxiety, these were rarely administered, instead staff used other techniques such as distraction and talking to ensure people were supported well when experiencing periods of distress. Where people received ‘as needed’ medicines there was guidance to explain to staff when to administer these medicines. ‘As needed’ often called ‘PRN’ medicines are medicines that are administered when necessary, such as for pain or anxiety relief.

People received their medicines safely and on time. We found there were clear systems in place to manage people’s medicines which included, stock control, storage and safe disposal of medicines. People were encouraged by staff to understand their medicines including why they had been prescribed and the importance of these medicines for their health and wellbeing. Staff often discussed medicines with people during their one-to-one support meetings. People were involved in regular medicines reviews with the GP and psychiatrists and supported to attend appointments.

Staff received regular medicines training and competency checks after training, to ensure they were safe to administer medicines.