Leeds Supported Living

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and enhance good practice. This was strongly embedded into the culture of the service and discussed with staff in team meetings. Risks associated with closed cultures had been identified. People had access to professionals, family and friends outside of the service they could raise concerns about their safety with.Accidents, incidents and near miss events were reported and action was taken to mitigate the risk of events happening again. There was a clear process for raising concerns and complaints.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Continuity of care for people was maintained by ensuring staff had access to clear records. When people moved into the service this was managed safely, and relatives spoke positively about how this was coordinated safely. People had hospital passports in place to support safe care and treatment, in the event they were admitted to hospital. One person used a pictorial story board to support them to prepare for health appointments.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider had clear processes in place to manage safeguarding events and worked collaboratively with the local authority in order to support people safely. Safeguarding was a standard agenda item in team meetings. Staff had training in safeguarding and understood how to recognise and report abuse and poor care. People and relatives told us they felt safe. Comments included, “[Name of person] is supported safely making a cup of tea. This was impossible in the past. [Name of person] is supported lots.” People were supported to develop skills to protect themselves from harassment and abuse in the community in a way that did not infringe on their independence.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically.

Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and regularly reviewed. Risk assessments were personalised and clearly detailed the control measures in place to minimise risks to people. Staff knew people well and understood there were times when people became distressed and took steps to understand why a person was distressed and what support they needed to express their emotions. Staff spoke to and about people at times of distress in a respectful way.There was a culture of positive risk taking, which meant people had the opportunity to increase their independence and lead full and active lives and do the things that mattered to them. We observed care being delivered in line with people’s care plans, which promoted their independence and choices.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental risk assessments were in place and people’s homes were safe and well-maintained. Where people required equipment there were safety checks in place. Staff reported any issues in the houses to the landlord and carried out regular detailed health and safety checks. People and relatives told us the houses were safe and homely. Comments included, “The home is clean and newly decorated. It is fresh smelling. The atmosphere is calm and relaxing.” People’s individual sensory needs had been considered. There were adaptations and reasonable adjustments made to enhance people’s quality of life. For example, in one house there was a sensory room which people enjoyed using as an individual or communal space.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. People told us they had good relationships with the staff. We observed interactions between people and staff where people appeared to be in control of their day and relaxed.

Staffing levels meant people received consistently safe and high quality care. This meant people had a varied and active lifestyle, focused on their needs and wishes. Feedback from people and relatives was positive about staff. Comments included, “It’s always well-staffed. They never look stressed or rushed. Everyone has someone to sit and talk to.”
People were involved in the recruitment of new staff, to offer their unique perspective and guidance on people’s individual needs. The provider had a very detailed induction plan which considered individual staff’ learning styles and included observations and time for reflection about their personal and professional development. Staff confirmed they received good training and support. Comments included, “I think we get a lot of training; it's very in depth. A lot is online, but some is face to face. It's all good quality.”

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and enhance good practice. This was strongly embedded into the culture of the service and discussed with staff in team meetings. Risks associated with closed cultures had been identified. People had access to professionals, family and friends outside of the service they could raise concerns about their safety with.Accidents, incidents and near miss events were reported and action was taken to mitigate the risk of events happening again. There was a clear process for raising concerns and complaints.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medication care plans were detailed and provided clear guidance to staff, including people’s preferred way of taking their medication. However topical medication records did not always have clear body maps to indicate where prescribed creams should be applied. The registered manager told us they were working with the pharmacy to ensure this was in place. Where medication administration records were handwritten, medication had not always been booked in by 2 staff, in line with best practice guidance. However, we were assured people were receiving their medication as prescribed.

People's medicines were reviewed in line with STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People with a learning disability, autism or both). STOMP is a national NHS England program focused on reducing the inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic medications to individuals with learning disabilities and/or autism. A staff member told us about 1 person whose medication had significantly reduced, as staff understood the signs and triggers for them becoming anxious.

Staff received training and there were processes in place to ensure their competency was regularly assessed. Medicines audits were in place, and where any shortfalls were addressed, we found they had been addressed promptly.