Wurel House

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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. The service was no longer in breach of the regulations relating to safe care and treatment.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There were systems in place to capture and log incidents and accidents. No recent incidents had been recorded, people, their relatives and staff told us there had been no incidents or accidents. Therefore, we were not able to fully assess how effective these systems were at reducing risk over time and identifying trends. When incidents had previously occurred, they were dealt with appropriately and action had been taken. Staff knew how to report concerns if they needed to do so. People knew how to contact the provider and told us they were confident action would be taken if they raised concerns.

Most people accessing the service did so when they came out of hospital as part of the support provided to ensure people left hospital when they were medically ready to do so. When people joined the service, the provider met with them and their relatives to discuss planned care provision. They also ensured equipment was in place to support people when they came home from hospital. If this was not in place the service contacted the appropriate service to make arrangements for equipment to be delivered. The provider told us people were provided with verbal information about policies and procedures and could contact the provider to discuss these if needed. We suggested people might benefit from a written copy of this information and the provider put this in place immediately after the inspection visit.

There were systems in place to capture and record safeguarding concerns. The provider was able to identify what a safeguarding concern was and knew how to report concerns. When a concern did arise, it was reported to the local authority. There had been no recent concerns identified. However, staff knew how to identify, and report concerns if they arose. Staff were confident the manager would take action but were also aware of how to whistleblow if concerns were not acted upon. People and their relatives told us they had no concerns about safety. One relative said, “[My relative] tells me they do everything they are supposed to do.”

There were inconsistencies in care planning which needed to be improved. Some care plans now included more information about the risks to people and how to mitigate these risks. However, there were still areas where more detail was needed. For example, there was now step by step guidance on how to support people who used a hoist, but there was no similar guidance for the use of slide sheets to support people who were cared for in bed. We raised this with the provider who addressed concerns and updated care plans immediately after the inspection visit.

Staff knew people well and knew how to provide them with safe support. People and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe. When asked one person said, “They do a good job, I am pleased with them.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the people’s homes as much as appropriate to ensure the environment was safe for people and staff. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. There was now a process in place to ensure equipment in people’s homes was regularly maintained and safe for staff to use. Risk assessments were undertaken to ensure the environment was safe for people and staff. Staff told us they felt safe in their role and that risks were managed appropriately.

There were enough staff and staff had the time they needed to support people. Comments from people and their relatives included, “They will stay the length of time, when everything is done, they will sit down for a chat. Never in any hurry to rush off” and, “If they running late they will ring me and let me know and when they will arrive.”

Staff had undertaken the training they needed to provide people with support. Prior to the inspection only the senior carer had completed training in learning disability and autism. However, other staff completed this training immediately after the inspection.

Staff competency was assessed. However, manual handling competency assessments needed more detail to clarify the reasons behind the scores awarded in each area. We raised this with the provider who amended the assessment to make improvement after the inspection.

Staff were recruited safely and had regular support and supervision with their line manager. Staff told us they had enough time to travel between people and the provider acted if there were concerns due to extra traffic.

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.

Staff had completed medicines administration training and undertaken an assessment of their competency. However, the provider informed us the service did not to provide support to people with prescription medicines and this was also set out in the services medicines policy. Therefore, we were not able to fully assess this area.