Autism & Aspergers Support Ltd

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. The service 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 unable to give us feedback verbally around safeguarding. However, we observed people to be relaxed, safe and comfortable in their home environment.

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. One member of staff told us, "We provide great care to the people here. Lot’s of continuity, so they know what to expect and their confidence and skills improve."

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 prepare and eat their lunch. 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 were unable to give us feedback verbally about managing risks. 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.

Staff understood the need to protect people and keep them safe while enjoying their local community. Staff knew people well and how to manage their risks. One member of staff told us how they help people to take positive risk, they said, "I’ve taught [person] how to use an iron, he’s really happy that he can iron his clothes. We’re out every day, helping them be part of the community, to feel like they belong and give them a happy life they enjoy."

Our observations showed staff supporting people safely and managing risks to their welfare and safety. People were supported to carry out tasks around the service that could place them at risk. For example assisting to make lunch and answering the front door. 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.

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 unable to give us feedback verbally about staffing. However, we saw that staff took time to sit and talk with people and engage in activities. People were laughing and joking with staff, and staff were available at all times.

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 member of staff told us, "We’re fully staffed now, but we occasionally use agency staff for sickness, but we use regular agency." Another member of staff said, "Our team is excellent, we support each other every day. I had a good induction, it helped me a lot."

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.

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.

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