Abbeyfield Hope Bank View

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 were kept safe and protected from bullying, harassment, avoidable harm, neglect, abuse and discrimination. Staff were confident in raising concerns. People and their families trusted them. When people raised concerns, they were acted on. Staff took prompt action to make people safer when there was an identified risk. Training and appropriate policies were in place. Governance regarding learning lessons from incidents needed to improve and some risk assessment information was not always readily available. We fed this back to the provider, who took prompt action.

This service scored 72 (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.

People had confidence in the ability of staff to keep them safe, and to anticipate risks. There was a strong consensus of opinion that staff understood when people needed more or less help, and escalated any concerns appropriately. One person said, “I feel safe, the doors are locked, we are a close-knit group, you feel safe, we go to each other, and the staff are always around. They remind me when I have appointments.” One relative said, “In emergencies they are great, very good, they come quickly and we get a phone call straight away, we are five or ten minutes away.”

Experienced staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and interacted confidently with them. They gave examples of how they would escalate any concerns and when they had acted on people’s changing needs, or deterioration. The provider had yet to move all care planning and risk information over to their electronic records system. This meant agency staff had not always had ready access to people’s risk information and they were reliant on verbal handovers from experienced staff. The interim manager committed to speeding up the move to electronic records, and to put further safety measures in place in the meantime.

External professionals described positive experiences with the service, in terms of how they ensured people’s safety. For instance, one professional told us, “The care team are helpful and offer a consistent approach when offering care and support.” A number of external partners felt the service had engaged with them openly to ensure people’s needs were safely met.

People felt safe. They described a range of instances where staff had responded promptly to their needs and concerns. People knew how to use their emergency pendant and confirmed staff responded to these. One relative said, “They make safety a priority, they all make time to check [person].” There were a small number of instances where people’s expectations of what the emergency pendant was for was not always in line with the intended purpose. The provider continued to share information with people about this. The majority of people we spoke with confirmed staff responded quickly when needed.

Staff knew what to do if they identified a serious concern about someone. They had reacted promptly to recent safeguarding incidents and alerted appropriately. They received safeguarding training and understood how to contact the local authority if and when needed.

Safeguarding processes and policies were in place. Due to the archiving of some information, and the fact an investigation was led and reported on by the provider’s housing staff (and not social care staff), it was difficult to access records regarding a recent safeguarding concern, or to understand if there were any wider issues to consider to ensure people were safe. In one recent instance lessons learned had not been shared effectively. We fed back to the provider that they needed to review how lessons learned were reflected and acted on. They took immediate action based on our feedback.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were happy with their surroundings and gave positive feedback about how well maintained it was. They attended regular meetings where they could raise any issues with the environment and confirmed action was taken. One person said, “The maintenance is good, they recently refurbished. The maintenance officer is available if you need him and he does things.” Another person said, “I always take care, I’m a very careful person and they do the same. They will say when they have just mopped the floor and if it’s not dry.” People’s flats were well maintained and clean throughout our visit.

Staff regularly checked that people were not at undue risk from their environment, for instance trip hazards or electrical hazards.

Leaders regularly met with the provider’s housing staff to ensure information was communicated and any concerns or required improvements were shared. Policies and procedures helped ensure people were not put at undue risk through poorly maintained surroundings.

A significant majority of people raised no concerns about staff not attending when expected. Because staff were based on site, there were rarely delays to scheduled calls. A small number of people felt there could be more staff available but acknowledged they felt safe generally and did not have to wait if there was an emergency. There were some concerns raised about the reliance on agency staff of late, and some people did not have confidence they would always be supported by sufficiently experienced or knowledgeable staff, particularly on a weekend or nighttime. The interim manager had made improvements in this area immediately prior to our inspection, and gave assurances that these improvements would be sustained. We observed staff interacting calmly and responsively with people during our visit.

The provider ensured there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs safely. The interim manager had rolled out a new rota management system to good effect and staff we spoke with preferred the new system. Staff felt their rotas were managed in such a way that they had time to complete all their calls and could plan ahead.

As per people’s feedback, there had been a reliance on agency staffing lately, which had meant a reduction in the continuity of care people could expect. This had also increased the chances of risks not being identified or acted on, as agency staff did not always have ready access to risk assessment records. The provider had recently moved to a new rota management system, which allowed staff who used the app to pick up additional shifts when they became available. Initial feedback was positive regarding this, although the manager acknowledged there had been an over-reliance on agency staff recently due to poor planning of the rota previously.

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.