Walkers 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

Incident reports were not always completed by staff when required. However, the registered manager took immediate action to address this. People were safeguarded from the risk of harm and abuse. Care plans were person-centred and current. People were supported by enough staff who were appropriately trained and well-supported by leaders.

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.

Staff and the registered manager understood what safeguarding meant and when they should refer concerns to the local safeguarding team. Staff understood people's rights and the Mental Capacity Act. Staff could tell us about types and indicators of abuse and who they could contact externally if needed.

Safeguarding referrals were made when required, and there were systems and processes in place to learn from any safeguarding concerns to help prevent future occurrences. Staff had completed safeguarding training, and information on how to report safeguarding concerns was displayed in communal areas. The provider's safeguarding policy promoted people being protected from harm and abuse.

People told us they felt safe. A person told us they sit with their keyworker each month to review their care plan and ensure they are happy with the support provided.

People were involved in managing risks related to them. For example, a person living with diabetes knew they needed to take medicines for this and told us staff helped them to keep their medicines safe in their room.

We observed people were appropriately supported to manage risks they could experience. For example, people had access to assistive technology to help manage the risk of falls. This meant people could enjoy their privacy and independence with help being on hand should they need it.

Staff had not always documented incidents when a person experienced emotional distress per the provider's policy. We identified health risks and documentation relating to a person who was living with epilepsy could benefit from review. However, the registered manager told us they would take action to review these areas, and we found no evidence of people experiencing harm. Furthermore, the registered manager told us they had met with staff to discuss incident reporting and had reviewed related processes. Care plans were current and provided good guidance for staff on supporting people and managing safety risks. People had positive behavioural support plans in place where they could experience emotional distress. Daily records showed people were given appropriate support and involved in managing risks. There was evidence of external health professionals being regularly involved in people’s care. For example, staff encouraged a person to exercise in line with advice from a physiotherapist to promote their mobility. People had been supported to attend regular health checks where required.

Our conversations with staff and the registered manager indicated they were knowledgeable about supporting people to manage risks. Staff told us about risks people could experience and what they did to promote their safety and confirmed they had read people's care plans. The registered manager positively advocated on a person's behalf by informing us what not to talk to people about to prevent causing them emotional distress.

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 schedules showed there were enough staff planned and deployed. Training records showed staff had received training relevant to their roles, and training was booked where refreshers were needed. Staff files showed staff were recruited safely, and staff performance was managed where improvements were needed.

We observed there were enough staff deployed. Staff supported people promptly where required and available to individuals at key times. For example, to support people with preparing and cooking meals.

Staff told us there were enough staff available and they could meet people's needs without rushing. A newer staff member felt their induction was supportive and that they could ask for additional training if required. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and that they received regular appraisals and supervision.

People appeared comfortable and relaxed with staff and spoke happily about them. Staff communicated with people in a way that they could respond to. There was evidence of people being involved in recruitment by interviewing staff.

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.