Homewards Limited - 20 Leonard 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

The home was safe. People were protected from the potential risk of abuse. Risk was assessed and risk assessments were in place to protect people and also to let them live without too many restrictions on their lives. Recruitment processes were followed, and staff employed by the home were supported to receive the skills needed to do their role and regularly supported. There were enough staff to provide a safe service to people.

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.

Systems were in place to protect people. Staff had received appropriate training in safeguarding adults and were able to explain the procedures they would follow if they needed to report potential abuse. A member of staff said, “I’m aware of the different types of abuse, we discuss safeguarding in training. I would report concerns to the manager and I’m confident he would take the right action.” Staff were aware they could report to the local authority and to the Care Quality Commission if they wanted to whistleblow or raise their concerns. Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place for all staff and leaders to follow and leaders were aware to be open and transparent in their reporting.

We observed staff being patient with people and supporting them in line with their risk assessment and recommended guidance to keep them safe. For example, a member of staff guided a person to the bathroom. This was done at the persons pace with no rushing. People were observed to be relaxed and comfortable in their home environment.

The deputy manager and care staff were clear about their safeguarding responsibilities. All staff told us they wanted to protect people living at the home due to their vulnerabilities and health conditions. The deputy manager said, “We need to prevent abuse, we have a robust system and all staff know when to report any concerns or abuse. I feel all people here are safe.” Staff told us their safeguarding training was good and helped them understand their role.

Not everyone living at the home used words to communicate, we contacted people’s relatives and advocate to obtain their feedback. Where we asked people if they were happy at the home, with the support of staff, one person nodded and said, “Yes.” Feedback from one persons advocate was positive. They told us the person always looked well presented when they visited and they had no concerns with their safety. The advocate commented there had been no safeguarding concerns but and they were confident the home would report any safeguarding issues.

People were supported in a way that protected them from their known risks. Observations showed staff were knowledgeable in people’s needs. For example, we saw staff explain to people when a visitor arrived the purpose of their visit and introduced the person to the visitor, this helped to reduce their level of anxiety. Other observations included seeing staff support people to leave the home to go to the supermarket and risk assessments were present for these activities.

Staff understood the need to protect people in the home and keep them safe while enjoying their local community. Staff knew people well and how to manage their risks. A member of staff said, “If [person] becomes distressed we can give them crisps to calm down, they also like to use their treadmill. We encourage the treadmill and the exercise ball.” This information was also detailed in people’s positive behaviour plan, this meant staff were fully aware of how to manage people’s risks.

Records confirmed risk was regularly monitored and reviewed. Staff had time to read and understand people’s individual risks and the methods needed to safely reduce the potential risk of harm. Risk assessing was thorough in the home and people were not restricted in their movements. We saw people had different risk assessments which included but were not limited to, accessing the garden, choking, using a treadmill, nail cutting, medicines and using the shower. Staff gave examples of how they supported people daily and managed their risks. A member of staff said, “[Person] needs 1 to 1 supervision, they need their food blending, snacks are ok but main food is blended.” This was confirmed in the risk assessment and all staff were aware, this ensured people were kept safe.

People’s experience while living at the home was positive as the management and staff followed risk assessments and put measures in place to risk the likelihood of potential harm. Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture was being followed by all staff within the home. The registered manager and deputy carried out audits to assure themselves staff were meeting people’s safety needs and were following agreed guidance as planned by the home and health professionals.

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

There were enough staff to provide people with safe care and treatment. We observed people who required 1 to 1 support had a member of staff with them at all times.

Staff told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff felt supported and received training relevant to their role. A member of staff told us the training offered gave them the skills to understand people's needs well.

Staff were recruited to the service in line with their policy and procedure. Appropriate checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable and able to work with vulnerable people at the home. Checks included references, police and criminal records checks, right to work and previous employment history. Staff were provided with a comprehensive training programme to support them in their role. They received training to support autistic people effectively, mental health, dementia and people with a learning disability. Staff were supported with training to manage people’s risk and where people’s behaviour caused them distress.

Feedback from a relative was positive around staff support and their skills. A relative said, “Yes, there are enough staff. Staff are professional and listen to my concerns. We sought feedback from an advocate and an occupational therapist, they were also complimentary of staff at the home and their knowledge and understanding of the people they supported.

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.