Sesame

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 told us they felt safe living at Sesame and relatives felt confident with the care and support provided. People and their relatives told us they were supported by sufficient numbers of experienced and skilled staff who treated them with kindness and compassion. People were supported by staff and relatives to develop their individualised support.

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 who were able to share their views, told us they felt safe and were happy living at Sesame. One person said, "I do feel safe, the staff are nice and kind." Relatives we spoke with did not raise any concerns about people’s safety. One relative said, "[Person’s name] is safe living at Sesame, we do not have any concerns about their safety. Staff understand their needs and know them very well.” Another relative said, “[Person's name] is well looked after. If we had any concerns, which we do not. we would report them to the registered manager and the local authority.”

Staff had received training in safeguarding and were able to tell us the correct action to take if they suspected people were at risk of abuse or avoidable harm. One member of staff said, "People who live here are safe. If I had any concerns about people’s safety, I would report it straight away." Staff described how monthly key worker meetings were used as an opportunity for people to discuss or raise concerns in a space where they felt comfortable and empowered to do so.

The provider had effective systems and processes in place to help ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and /or avoidable harm. The registered manager told us, and records confirmed that staff’s knowledge was regularly checked through a series of spot checks and competency assessments. The provider monitored all safeguarding concerns through a series of audits which were shared with staff at all levels. We reviewed the most recent audit and found the registered manager had taken appropriate action following the receipt of information of concern. This included referring information to the local authority for further investigation and follow up.

The registered manager described how the service assessed people’s needs before offering a placement. Assessments were used to develop person centred care plans and risk assessments. These were reviewed on a regular basis with the involvement of people, relatives, and staff. Care plans and risk assessments reviewed by the inspection team contained clear information regarding risks and provided guidance for staff on how to support people to minimise those risks.

Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of their needs. For example, staff were aware of people's individual risks, potential triggers and signs that might show the person was becoming unwell or anxious. Staff described how they supported people to manage their emotional distress or anxieties.

People who were able to share their views with us were aware of their care plan and associated risk assessments. People’s involvement in the development of their care and support varied due to their individual needs. One person told us they met with their key worker each month to talk about their care. We reviewed a sample of the notes from these meetings and saw that staff spent time with people and asked: how they felt about living at Sesame; whether they were happy with the support they received or if there was anything they would like to change. Relatives we spoke with told us they were fully involved in the care planning and risk assessment process. Care plans and risk assessments were sent to them to review and make comment. Relatives said monthly meetings enabled them to keep up to date with people’s changing needs, understand risks and develop positive risk-taking approaches.

Support was flexible and based around people’s needs. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and any associated risks and were skilled at anticipating people's needs.

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 were protected by safe recruitment practices. Records confirmed a range of checks including application, interview, and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were conducted before staff started working at the service. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. The provider monitored staff training on a training matrix. This showed staff had received training in a variety of subjects relevant to their role. The registered manager carried out a series of spot checks and competency assessments to check staff's knowledge and identify any training needs.

Staff told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. One member of staff said, “Each person receives one to one support during the day and there are two waking night staff.” Staff had opportunities for regular supervision and appraisal of their work performance. Staff told us they felt supported, valued, and appreciated by the service’s management team. One staff member said, “The induction was very comprehensive. I was given time to read people’s care files; understand risk assessments and shadow more experienced colleagues. I particularly like the catch-up meetings with the registered manager. This gave me the opportunity to raise any questions, and I found these meetings were very supportive.”

Staff were employed in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs safely. Where people had additional one to one or two to one support, we saw this was being provided. People were supported and spoken about in a respectful and dignified way. We saw lots of laughs and good humour being displayed between people and the staff supporting them. It was clear from the observations that people were comfortable in staff's presence.

People and their relatives told us there were enough staff to meet their needs safely. One person described how staffing was flexible and fitted around their daily needs. This enabled them to follow their interests and hobbies. Relatives’ comments included, “There’s more than enough staff”, “There is always plenty of staff around if you need them”, and “Each person has their own allocated staff member each day.”

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.