Jervaulx Road

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 embed good practice. The registered manager conducted reviews of safety incidents to look at areas of learning and shared these with staff. People and their relatives told us people felt safe living at Jervaulx Road.

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.

There was a strong focus on the importance of transition planning and communication with relatives and other services. A relative told us how their loved one visited the home several times to get to know staff and people before staying overnight. Assessments and support plans were comprehensive and up to date which enabled staff to deliver safe care.

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. People told us they felt safe living at the home. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were in place for all relevant people, and any conditions were added to people’s individual care plan and were being met.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff were not always aware of risks in the environment to help people understand and manage these safely. Otherwise, people were well supported to understand other risks that might affect them and subsequent risk assessments were robust. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff told us they felt risks were managed appropriately and with consideration of people making informed decisions. A staff member told us, “Safety is managed by involving people and identifying risks and how they can be prevented for the person to maintain independence and confidence. Risk assessments will always be updated accordingly if needs change.” Relatives told us staff discussed risks with people, and there were security systems in place, such as coded doors, which helped them to feel their family members were safe.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

Not all areas of the environment were maintained to keep people safe. The provider was not always meeting required standard around environmental safety. When we raised this with the registered manager and the provider, they took immediate steps to address the safety issues found.

The provider made sure 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.

Recruitment practices were meeting requirements. We observed staff spending time with people and support was unhurried. There were enough staff to support people to do things for themselves where possible. A relative told us, “There's always lots of staff.” A staff member told us, “Yes, enough staff... It means we can get people out.”

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles, including having regular supervision and training. Staff were trained in a variety of subjects relevant to the needs of the people they supported. A staff member said, “We are always up to date with training and regularly attend training courses.” The provider was meeting the Oliver McGowan code of practice in relation to training. Some staff required further training, but this was planned. Oliver McGowan training is in relation to learning disability and autism and is a statutory requirement.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was clean and equipment maintained to reduce the risk of the spread of infections. People were supported to keep the home clean and tidy, and staff also regularly cleaned. Staff and management completed frequent checks of the environment and equipment to ensure its cleanliness.

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. Medicines were administered as prescribed and staff had appropriate training. Staff ensured medicines were reviewed if people’s needs changed, and in line with ‘Stopping over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people (STOMP)’. Where people had capacity to manage their own medicines, their independence was encouraged.