London Care (Lew Evans House) Also known as SE22 0QF

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 protected from abuse and the risk of abuse. The branch manager understood how to raise and investigate concerns. There were processes to identify learning and share it with staff to improve people’s experience. The provider had a system to assess, monitor and reduce risks and provide guidance to staff. Risk assessments were completed with people and regularly reviewed. Staff understood the individual risks to people well and how they could reduce these risks. Some improvements were identified as needed with the provider’s electronic risk assessment forms which did not always contain sufficient detail for unfamiliar staff. The provider was in the process of improving these records at the time of the assessment. People and staff confirmed there were enough staff to ensure people’s safety and meet their needs. Staff received regular training and supervision across a range of topics to ensure they could support people safely. Most staff training was up to date and where it had expired the provider was in the process of organising this. Safe recruitment processes were followed.

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 told us they felt safe and were and protected by staff who understood their roles and responsibilities and how to keep them safe. One person commented, “ I feel very safe here. It is great. There is always someone around and the carers look after me well.” We saw that any safeguarding concerns were appropriately managed and reported to ensure people were not at risk.

Staff understood and could describe their role in safeguarding vulnerable adults. They knew how to whistle blow outside of the service if needed. Staff told us they were encouraged to be open and report any concerns. The provider ensure staff received regular safeguarding training. Staff told us they were confident that the branch manager and management team would respond to any concerns without delay.

We reviewed the service safeguarding records and saw that safeguarding concerns were appropriately raised and investigated. The branch manager worked with appropriate health and social care agencies to make sure people were safeguarded and protected from abuse or harm and to identity any learning. For example, learning in relation to supporting people to keep their possessions safe had recently been identified and acted on. The provider also shared learning from any safeguarding across its services.

People said they had been involved in assessing possible risks to their health and safety. People were provided with emergency pendants to call for staff support in an emergency. They told us staff responded quickly when they had needed to call them. One person said, "Staff know how to help me move safely. They are well trained with equipment."

Staff knew people well and understood the possible risks involved with their health and care. They confirmed that risk assessments were current and reflective of people’s needs. There was guidance available to staff across a range of health risks such as sepsis or diabetes.

Systems were in place to assess and mitigate risks. There were plans to manage emergencies. Staff understood the fire safety policy and their role in the event of a fire. Staff received fire safety training. Staff had been trained to use equipment to support people and were confident applying their learning to ensure people’s safety. People’s records contained information about risks to their safety and guidance for staff on how to manage these to keep people safe. Some risk assessment records did not always include full details of the risks assessed. For example, risks in relation to diabetes were assessed in different parts of a support plan, rather than located together in one place. The provider had already identified this issue and was in the process of improving their risk assessment documentation and record. Accidents and incidents were reported and the branch manager and management team reviewed these for any additional actions needed such as a request for extra support. There was effective communication with the housing provider and their staff team to ensure any environmental risks were identified and communicated to the housing team.

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 told us they received support from the same consistent staff group, who had got to know them very well. A relative commented, “It's good there has been some consistency with the carers as it has helped.” We saw most staff had worked at the service for a number of years. People confirmed there were enough staff on duty to meet their needs, they said sometimes staff may run a bit late but they understood this might be due to a problem someone else may be having where they needed staff support.

Staff said they were provided with the training and support they needed to deliver a good standard of care. Staff commented that there were enough staff to meet people’s needs at all time and they did not have to rush their calls. Team leaders monitored the support calls to ensure people received their care at the time it was planned.

Staff rotas were continually reviewed and adapted to ensure people’s needs were being met. New staff were supported with a period of induction to help them to learn about their role. Records showed that staff received training relevant to their role and this was mainly up to date. However, while staff had received eLearning training, some practical training was out of date. We were assured by the provider’s Head of Quality that this was in the process of being rolled out as refresher training to all staff. Safe recruitment processes were followed. The provider carried out a range of checks to ensure they employed staff suited to work in social care.

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.