361 The Ridge

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

Systems were in place to keep people safe and free from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Risk was assessed and risk assessments were in place to support people in the least restrictive way possible. Concerns were reported appropriately and investigated. Recruitment processes were followed, and staff employed by the home were supported to receive the skills needed to do their role. There were enough staff to provide a safe service to people. People received their medicines safely. The home was safe and welcoming.

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.

People were observed to be relaxed and comfortable in their home environment. One person told us “I am happy here.”

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults. Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and their responsibilities for reporting accidents, incidents, or concerns. Staff were able to recognise the signs of potential abuse and knew the action to take. A relative told us, “He is safe there; he gets on with most of the staff.” Another relative told us, “As far as I’m concerned, she’s safe and content.”

We observed staff being patient with people and supporting them in line with their risk assessment to keep them safe. For example, a member of staff supported a person to use a handheld computer to view pictures. This was done at the persons pace with no rushing.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to DoLS authorisations were being met. Mental capacity assessments were completed, and best interest decisions made with the involvement of relevant others, when needed. There were effective systems, processes, and practices to ensure people were safe from risk of harm and abuse. Information was displayed around the service to inform staff of safeguarding processes. Information was displayed in an easy read format for people. The registered provider must notify us about certain changes, events and incidents that affect their service or the people who use it. Notifications had been submitted in line with regulatory requirements.

People's care plans contained detailed risk assessments linked to their support needs. These plans included details about people's individual medical conditions and how staff safely supported them. A relative told us, “We live a long way away, so we don’t visit much, but they let me know about [person] and if there are any changes.”

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.

Our observations showed staff supporting people safely and managing risks to their welfare and safety. People were supported to mobilise and carry out tasks around the service that could place them at risk. Their risks were assessed, and staff kept people safe.

Risk assessments were in place to support people to be as independent as possible and provided clear and relevant guidance for staff. The risk assessments covered all aspects of people's health, daily living, and social activities. People were kept safe by staff regularly reviewing and updating their risk assessments as needs, interests, and activities changed. Easy read fire evacuation instructions were displayed for people and staff.

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 took time to sit and talk with people and engage in activities. People were laughing and joking with staff as they completed a colouring in activity.

Staff were suitably trained and had their competencies assessed regularly. Staff received supervision which provided the opportunity to discuss their personal development, identify any gaps in their knowledge and talk about their wellbeing. Staff told us they received regular supervision and were supported by the management team. One staff member told us, “Things have really improved, [manager] is great. Things are running really well.” Another staff member told us, “We are a good team, we support each other.”

We saw staff supporting people safely and attended to them in a timely manner. People did not directly talk to us about staffing levels. However, our observation confirmed there were enough staff deployed to keep people safe and meet their needs. We saw a staff member comforting a person who was coughing.

There were safe systems and processes for the recruitment of staff. We looked at the records of 2 staff recruited and saw all the required checks had been made before they commenced employment. Staff were provided with a comprehensive training programme to support them in their role. They received specific training to support to ensure they can meet the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability.

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.

People's care plans included detailed guidance for staff about their prescribed medicines and how they needed and preferred them to be administered. People’s relatives told us they received their medicines safely. A relative told us, “She has medicines every day, they’ve not told me there have been any problems.”

Staff were trained in administering medicines. Their competence to do this safely was assessed regularly by their managers.

The service followed safe protocols for the ordering, storage, administration, and disposal of medicines. Regular audits were carried out to make sure medicines were given safely. These included full monthly audits by managers. People's medicines records were fully completed, and up to date. The provider had systems in place to respond to any medicine errors, including contact with healthcare professionals and, if needed, retraining of staff members. Protocols for 'as required' (PRN) medicines such as pain relief medicines described the circumstances and symptoms when the person may require this medicine. Staff had received training and implemented the principles of STOMP (stopping over-medication of people with a learning disability, autism or both) to ensure that people’s medicines were reviewed by prescribers in line with these principles. There were processes for medicines administered covertly (where a medicine is hidden in food or drink and given without the person being made aware). Details had been recorded in people’s care plans. The staff had carried out best interests and mental capacity assessments when needed to administer medicines covertly.