Sugarman Health and Wellbeing - Liverpool

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

There were systems and processes in place to keep people safe. Accidents and incidents were recorded clearly, and safeguarding referrals were made where required. People told us they felt safe and there were enough staff to support them. However, some people said staffing was inconsistent at times, so people's needs were not always met. Staff were recruited safely and were supported by the management team, although staff training was at times, out of date. Risks to people were managed safely and there were risk assessments in place which were reviewed frequently. There were some inconsistencies in people's care plans regarding staff support and the management team were working improve this.

This service scored 72 (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 told us they felt safe. They said, "We have no worries" and "Oh yes I feel safe". Relatives told us they thought their loved ones were supported safely. They said, "I feel my relative is safe and well looked after" and "If I didn't feel safe or in good hands I would raise my concerns".

Staff knew how to identify the signs and indicators of abuse, as well as escalate concerns should they need to. A staff member said, "I am fully aware of the whistleblowing procedures. I feel I would be able to report" and "We have a system where we can report to a manager or a north west email. I would feel able to raise any concerns if necessary". Leaders told us, "All staff have safeguarding training and this is refreshed annually. We do safeguarding exercises in learning meetings. Cluster managers do a weekly report and staff know how to raise safeguarding concerns."

There were systems and process in place to keep people safe. Staff had access to a safeguarding and whistleblowing policy and received training in this area. Safeguarding referrals were made to the local authority where required.

People and their relatives were involved in planning for risks associated with activities and accessing the community. They had input into care planning and risk assessment processes. Examples of a positive risk taking approach were seen and people spoken with told us they were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed such as cycling and swimming.

Staff spoken with were aware of identified risks and actions to be taken to manage these. Staff knew where they could access relevant information about risk management. Leaders told us, "If an incident happens, staff will collate this on an incident and ABC form, which is then reviewed in real time" and "We have a risk register in place, which everyone has access to. We welcome positive risk taking with dynamic risk assessing".

People were involved in decisions about risk and there was evidence of positive risk taking where appropriate. People's care plans outlined how staff should support them safely, however there were inconsistencies in people's care plans at times. People had risk assessments which were reviewed every 3 months and staff knew how to access and follow these.

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 gave us mixed feedback on staffing. Some people spoke positively about this and said, "I trust all the staff, they are kind" and "The permanent staff are good, they know [person] really well". However, some people felt some staff members were not proactive and did not know the needs of their relatives well enough. They said, "There has been a lot of transitional staff which affects [person]. A lot of staff have been coming and they don't always follow the care plan" and "New staff are not experienced and the quality of staff has gone downhill since the manager left."

Overall staff told us staffing had become more consistent and they usually supported the same people. The new manager was taking some action to address the concerns raised in relation to staffing in terms of staff being inconsistent.

Staff were recruited to the service safely and all relevant checks had been undertaken. They were recruited to match with a specific service user, and people and their relatives were involved in the recruitment of staff. Rotas evidenced safe staffing levels and people were supported in line with their needs. Staff received online and face to face training in a range of areas, but face to face training for some staff members was out of date.

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.