SignHealth Longley 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 81 (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.

There was a clear culture of learning and reflection within the service. Staff reviewed incidents and accidents promptly to identify what had happened, why it occurred, and how to prevent a recurrence. Records showed that all incidents were documented and investigated, with outcomes discussed in team meetings and, where appropriate, shared with relevant health professionals.

One example demonstrated how learning was applied in practice. Following an incident where a person’s behaviour escalated due to a delay in staff arrival, the team analysed the cause and identified that the person’s anxiety increased when their routine was disrupted. Staff adapted their handover process to ensure continuity, even in the event of unavoidable lateness. As a result, the individual’s anxiety reduced, and similar incidents had not recurred.

Staff reported that learning from such situations was regularly shared within the team, which helped to strengthen consistency and promote proactive risk management.

Health professionals also told us that staff were competent in recognising and responding to risk, with one noting that “carers were aware of how to respond if a resident experiences an acute mental health episode.”

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

The provider demonstrated a structured and collaborative approach to managing transitions into the service. When a new person was referred from a specialist NHS mental health ward, the team carried out a full pre-admission assessment in partnership with ward staff and other professionals. This included reviewing clinical and placement history, risk assessments, and background information to ensure the service could safely meet the person’s complex needs.

To promote a smooth transition, staff from the home visited the hospital ward several times to establish familiarity and consistency. Day and night trial visits were arranged to allow both staff and the person to get to know one another in a supportive environment. A multidisciplinary review followed, where mental health professionals agreed that the placement was suitable and, in the person’s best interests.

Environmental adaptations were made before admission following occupational therapy advice, including the installation of a wet room to improve accessibility and safety. Health professionals told us that transitions were well managed, describing the approach as “collaborative, well planned and person-centred.

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 were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had a clear understanding of safeguarding procedures and the steps to take if they had concerns about someone’s safety. All staff received regular safeguarding training, and those spoken with could describe the different types of abuse, how to recognise them, and how to report concerns both internally and externally.

Staff told us they would raise concerns immediately if they witnessed poor practice. One staff member said they would “report it straight to the manager and ensure action was taken.” Staff were also aware of the provider’s whistleblowing policy and said they felt confident to use it if needed.

Daily handover meetings were used to share information and ensure that emerging risks or safeguarding issues were communicated promptly. Staff said they felt well supported by the management team and confident that any concerns raised would be taken seriously and acted upon.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were actively involved in identifying, understanding and managing risks related to their care and daily lives. Risk management plans were detailed, person-centred and reviewed regularly with the individual and staff team. These plans described the specific risks, their potential impact, and the agreed strategies to minimise them. Areas covered included health, finances, hygiene, medicines, and the home environment.

Staff used communication tools and visual aids to help people understand and participate in discussions about safety. For example, a person with autism successfully completed a swab test after staff used pictorial prompts. Professionals praised the service’s collaborative and respectful approach. One commented that “risks are identified and addressed through clear plans that are well communicated between staff, residents and other professionals.”

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

The environment was safe, well maintained, and adapted to meet people’s individual needs. The service completed regular environmental risk assessments, and actions were recorded, monitored, and reviewed to ensure the premises remained suitable and hazard free.

Health and safety documentation was current and showed that checks for fire safety, equipment, and maintenance were carried out as required. The provider ensured that specialist equipment and environmental adaptations were specific to each person’s assessed needs. For example, following occupational therapy input, bathrooms had been modified to include wet room facilities for improved safety and accessibility.

The service used technology to enhance safety and independence. Pagers were carried by night staff and shift leaders to alert them to fire alarms or sensor activations. In the event of an alarm, visual flashing lights and vibrating pager systems provided instant alerts throughout the building, supporting the needs of deaf residents.

The provider made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received thorough support, supervision and strong development opportunities. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

There were always enough suitably skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs safely and effectively. People told us that staff were consistently available when needed, and professionals described staffing levels as “excellent,” with good communication and proactive risk management. The management team discussed the potential impact on staffing and team dynamics before admission. Staff expressed confidence in their ability to adapt and welcomed the challenge.

Recruitment practices were thorough, and values based. Job descriptions clearly outlined the requirement for BSL proficiency, cultural awareness, and understanding of deaf identity. Staff were expected to demonstrate BSL fluency, typically through a Level 2 qualification or equivalent internal assessment. Where an applicant had not yet achieved a formal Level 2 certificate but demonstrated equivalent fluency through an internal language assessment, they were supported to obtain the qualification within a defined period.

Pre-employment checks were comprehensive and included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, references, and verification of employment history before any work commenced.

The induction process was highly structured, and person focused. New staff underwent comprehensive training covering core health topics and specialist areas relevant to Deaf care before working independently. Induction included at least 1 week of shadowing experienced staff, followed by a further 2-week supported practice period where performance was monitored through direct observation and feedback.

Staff told us they felt valued, supported, and motivated. They said training was relevant and easily accessible. One health professional commented that “the staff are well-informed, motivated, and a pleasure to work with,” adding that their skill and consistency “made a real difference in people’s progress.”

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 service maintained a high standard of cleanliness and infection prevention throughout the building. People lived in a clean, comfortable, and well-presented environment that was free from odours and clutter.

Records showed that the provider had clear systems in place to monitor and manage infection prevention and control. Regular environmental checks and cleaning audits were completed, and any issues identified were promptly addressed. Staff understood their individual responsibilities for maintaining hygiene and safety, and cleaning schedules were followed consistently.

People were supported to take part in cleaning and organising their own rooms where possible, helping to promote independence and ownership.

All staff had completed infection control training, and refresher sessions were delivered to maintain awareness. Staff confirmed they had the equipment and knowledge they needed to prevent infection and reduce risk.

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 managed safely and effectively. Staff followed clear procedures to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. All staff involved in medicines administration had completed relevant training and competency assessments, and they told us they felt confident and well supported in their roles.

People were encouraged to self-administer their medicines where appropriate. Risk assessments were completed to determine the level of support each person required, and this was reviewed regularly to promote independence.

Medicines were supplied in blister packs prepared by the pharmacy, accompanied by printed medication administration records (MARs). On delivery, 2 staff checked the medicines against prescriptions to confirm accuracy and stock levels. Any discrepancies were immediately clarified with the pharmacy before medicines were accepted. Staff also carried out daily checks and a weekly stock count, led by the shift leader, to ensure balances remained accurate.

MAR charts included people’s photographs to support identification and reduce risk of error. When the standard pharmacy charts were found to have print that was too small for people to read, the service developed its own larger, colour-coded MAR format to improve accessibility. This enabled people to better understand and take ownership of their medicines.

Separate signing sheets were used for as required medicines to ensure clarity. The registered manager had recently simplified this system to make it easier to follow and to reduce the potential for errors.

Medicines were stored securely and at the correct temperature. There were clear procedures for the safe return of unused or discontinued medicines to the pharmacy. Records confirmed there were no errors or omissions, and all documentation was completed accurately.