Salutem Supported Living North

“We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture.’ This guidance supported judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence, and access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the service respected people as individuals and promoted their access to their community. However, we received feedback from some relatives about the suitability of the properties. In the 2 large properties the lounge area was reported to sometimes have up to 15 people present. We were told there was a second lounge in 1 of the properties but found this to contain staff belongings and did not see any tenants using this.”

“People received safe care because the provider had effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood how to identify and report safeguarding concerns.”

“People were supported to transition safely between services because the provider had robust systems in place to achieve this. This included pre-admission plans and hospital passports.”

“People had been supported to manage risks in relation to their care and support needs. Risk assessments were included in care records and updated when needed. Not all staff understood how to access these, but we were assured this had been addressed.”

“Staff had been recruited safely because the provider had followed their own robust recruitment processes. Staff had received mandatory training and bespoke training in relation to people’s specific needs. Staff rotas showed people received the support they were assessed as needing. Staff had regular support and supervision to support them in their roles.”

“The premises were safely maintained. The provider had systems in place to monitor the safety of the environment. The security of the premises had been a concern for some relatives. We raised this with the provider who addressed this.”

“Some infection prevention control measures were not fully effective. We received concerns from relatives about out-of-date food, soiled linen and unclean cutlery. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available for staff to use and was kept in people’s own rooms.”

“Medicine management had not always been optimum. People ordered medicines individually and on occasions, they had not received them from the pharmacy in time. This was not always in the control of the provider. Systems in place to maintain clear oversight by managers were not always effective. The provider was working with health partners to address this.”

“People were supported to make decisions in relation to their care and support. Where people lacked the capacity to do this the provider ensured they followed the legal requirements in the Mental Capacity Act and Best Interest process.”

“People’s needs had been holistically assessed with input from people, their relatives and other professionals. People’s needs were reviewed and updated.”

“People’s health needs had been assessed with input from health professionals. Where people had specific health conditions staff had received training to support people to manage them. People were supported to attend opticians, dentists…”