280-282 Wells Road

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained as requires improvement. Whilst we found people were safe and people’s physical needs were met, we found staffing levels were not always sufficient to ensure people’s social needs were fulfilled. This was a breach in legal regulation in relation to staffing. However, people told us they had good relationships with the staff. Care plans were in place to support people to have a good day, and strategies were in place to prevent distress. Reactive strategies were available and followed by staff, so they consistently supported people when they became distressed. Sexual safety was considered, and people’s sexual needs were considered and supported.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Thorough investigations were completed by the service following any incidents and accidents, involving people and their relatives.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The service worked with healthcare professions to improve outcomes for people.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. Where any areas of concern were identified, the service shared these quickly and appropriate actions were taken to safeguard people.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by listening to their views and involving them in decisions. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe and supportive. For example, people’s care plans reflected their life choices, such as where people wished to smoke.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Regular health and safety checks were conducted at the service. Actions were reported and resolved promptly where this posed a health and safety risk.

The service did not make sure there were enough staff deployed. Where people were assessed to need specific staff support, this was not always provided. For example, on review of 3 months of rotas, there were 25 occasions where people did not received support they had been assessed to need. This meant people did not always have support for, meaningful activities, including accessing their local community. Staff told us the assessed staff support was not always provided due to a number of staff leaving the service in a short period of time. The provider followed safe recruitment practices and had ensured appropriate pre-employment checks were completed.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was readily available to staff and staff were observed to use this in line with best practice guidance.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People’s care plans provided information to staff about how to support a person to take their medicines. Staff received training in safely administering medicines.