The Barn

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

Safeguarding systems and processes were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and neglect. Staff were aware of their responsibility to safeguard people and how to raise concerns. People lived safely and free from unnecessary restrictions. The service assessed, monitored and managed risk well.

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.

Staff worked with external professionals to ensure safe and efficient transitions. This consistent support enabled people to make successful transitions where they continued to develop and make progress.

Systems were in place to ensure the continuity of safe care. Staff completed a comprehensive assessment of people's needs before they started to provide care and support. People’s care and support needs were continually reviewed, and plans updated to ensure they reflected people’s current needs. Leaders told us they supported staff to understand people’s complex needs by sourcing additional training if necessary.

People told us they were supported to understand information when accessing external services like healthcare. Staff took the time to understand how people communicated and had received additional training to support people’s communication needs. This enabled staff to ensure people could be involved as much as possible in sharing their views and decisions. It also helped to prevent possible misinterpretation and frustration for people who otherwise may not have felt understood when speaking with people they did not know well.

Staff told us it was important to ensure they always communicated with people in language they understood. This ensured people understood the processes and could be part of the decisions being made. Staff told us it was important to stay positive throughout any changes in people’s lives, so they remained positive. Leaders told us they discussed information with people that could impact on them in the long term so they could plan for the future. This included decisions about what they wanted to do in the future and how they could achieve this.

People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse. Staff were aware of the provider’s safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures and were confident in raising concerns if they felt they needed to. Accessible versions of how to raise concerns were displayed in the home so people knew how they could speak up and who they could speak to. People told us they felt safe and happy in their home and knew who they could talk to if that changed.

Staff were trained to ensure they recognised signs when people experienced emotional distress and what support was needed to keep them and others safe. Staff told us how they would raise concerns if needed and had good knowledge of the procedure's they would follow. Additional training had been put in place for staff following analysis of incidents to reduce distress and improve the outcomes for a person they supported. We were told this had been a positive experience for everyone and had supported staff to be more confident in their role.

All restrictions on people's freedom were documented and reviewed to ensure they were justified. There were systems in place for incidents to be appropriately reviewed and lessons were learnt to improve outcomes for people in the future. Risk assessments were clear, detailed and robust. Risk assessments provided appropriate guidance for staff to enable them to mitigate risks. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). When people were assessed as lacking mental capacity for certain decisions, staff clearly recorded assessments and any best interest decisions made. Best interest decisions were made in accordance with legislation and people's wishes.

We observed people being supported in the least restrictive way which did not infringe on their freedom or ability to express themselves. For example, staff supported a person to speak freely and openly with us whilst discreetly ensuring the safety of the situation.

Staff reported incidents appropriately. Managers investigated these robustly before sharing lessons learned which encouraged an open culture of learning and improvement. This meant processes were in place to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

We observed people being supported in line with their assessed risks. For example, people were supported in the kitchen to make drinks and snacks.

Leaders told us they analysed records to proactively identify and minimise risk to ensure people's anxieties were reduced where possible. This improved people's quality of life and wellbeing. Staff told us how they supported people to go out and enjoy activities that had in the past not been made accessible for them. They told us how they risk assessed situations using their knowledge of the person to ensure people and staff’s safety.

People's care records and risk assessments were detailed about the support they needed. Detailed plans and assessments helped staff to ensure people got the right support to reduce risks and support people safely without restricting their rights to make decisions and choices. This meant people were supported to take positive risks. One person told us, “I can take risks and I will take risks.”

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

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

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.