Arch Futures

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 received safe care and treatment from staff who understood their needs and followed healthcare guidance from professionals. Staff knew how to safely support people around their individual risks. Staff were recruited safely. Positive feedback was received from staff about working for the service, including the support, training and communication systems in place. People received consistent care and support from a named team of care staff. The provider actively encouraged and welcomed feedback about the service and encouraged people and relatives to share concerns to ensure the service met people’s needs and to support improvements.

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.

People and relatives told us there was effective communication, with any issues or concerns quickly responded to and action taken to prevent re-occurrence. Feedback included, “Staff deal with things if things start to escalate. They don’t react. They pick it up quickly and it’s sorted”, and “We can call management at any time. They are approachable.”

The provider had a development plan that had identified where the service could improve and develop and how this needed to happen. For example, the provider was in the process of implementing digital records to improve the quality of recordings. Additionally, they had made changes to leadership structures to improve response and communication for people and staff. This showed the provider's ongoing commitment and plan to further improve the service. The provider had created an open culture which staff found supportive and empowering and people and relatives found honest, approachable and responsive. Accidents and incidents were analysed, reviewed and action taken to mitigate future risks. The provider was open and honest with people and relatives and took timely action where things had gone wrong. Positive feedback was received from staff about working for the service, including the support, training and communication systems in place.

The provider worked with partner agencies to improve care for others. One partner told us, "Information is passed from management to the front line care staff who provide the direct support so as there is quick improvement and change for the person receiving services. Management were committed to an excellent service provision, knowledgeable and knew where to refer to for specialised advice."

The provider analysed incidents and undertook post incident de-briefing with staff, people, relatives and relevant agencies to ensure lessons were learnt and actions taken. Systems to provide clear audit trails of this analysis were under development at the time of our assessment as part of the upgrade of systems to digital platform. The provider had a clear staff structure and staff understood their role, and responsibilities and were accountable for their actions. Staff understood and shared the provider’s vision and this was reflected in the innovative approaches to people’s support and care. The provider actively encouraged and welcomed feedback about the service and encouraged people and relatives to share concerns to ensure the service met people’s needs and to support improvements.

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.

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

People and relatives felt fully involved in identifying risks associated with their care and support and lifestyle choices and contributing to identifying measures to reduce risks. People were supported in positive risk taking which enhanced and improved their quality of life. Relatives felt key partners in their family members care and felt their contributions and opinions were listened to and valued. One relative told us, "We feel very much a team. All the risks are covered. If there ever is a new risk then it goes in the care plan and we will review it and go through it all together."

Staff felt confident in understanding and mitigating risks associated with people’s care and support. People’s care plans included clear guidance around measures to reduce risk whilst also promoting positive risk taking for people where appropriate. People’s care plans included positive behaviour support strategies to support staff to understand how people communicated, their frustrations and triggers for distress and agreed interventions. All staff received accredited training in physical intervention which helped to ensure interventions were safe and provided in the least restrictive way.

Staff had good oversight of risk for the people they supported. They supported people safely and effectively and clearly understood and followed guidance in people’s care plans.

Risk assessments were centred around people’s choice for how they wanted to live their lives and spend their time. For example, a person liked to go out but could become overstimulated and presented a risk to others and themselves. Resources had been identified that ensured the person received the support they needed to keep them and others safe, and ways of accessing environments safely had been identified. Delegated clinical tasks, such as tracheostomy care, PEG feeds and bowel suppositories were supported by detailed, step by step guidance and information to ensure support was safe and in line with best practice. Staff and relatives confirmed they understood and followed this guidance.

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 received consistent care and support from a named team of care staff. Each team had received the training and support needed to meet each person’s specific needs. People benefited from staff who were matched for compatibility around shared interests, personalities, etc which helped to develop positive relationships and communication. Feedback regarding the staff was predominantly complimentary. Comments included, "The best thing is the consistency. It's fantastic. They send the same ones, then [person] knows them and they know [person]. Regular carers keep [person] really, really happy" and “Every morning they are there. Always on time. I have no problems with them."

Staff received ongoing training the provider had identified as required. This included bespoke training based on the care needs of an individual person. The provider employed a registered nurse to deliver health related training where health tasks were delegated, and staff competency checks were regularly completed.

Staff were confident, open and approachable during home visits. They clearly knew people’s needs well. Observed approaches were in line with care plans and staffing levels were as per identified needs. Wrap around care meant people benefited from consistent staff who knew them well.

Sufficient staff were deployed to meet people’s assessed needs. Staff had the training, skills and knowledge to keep people safe. Safe staff recruitment processes were in place. This included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, these provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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.