Your Ryedale Care Limited

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to staff recruitment records and staff training and supervision.

This service scored 62 (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 identify and embed good practice. Systems were in place to monitor and respond to any accidents or incidents.

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. People’s needs were assessed prior to them starting to use the service. Relatives told us the provider communicated well with them about any health or social care referrals that might be needed.

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 and staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to raise or report any concerns.

Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe with staff and using the service. A relative said, “Yes, absolutely safe. I trust them.”

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. Risks relating to people were assessed and managed appropriately. Risk assessments were person-centred. People and their relatives were fully involved. Relatives felt confident staff knew how to support people safely.

The provider detected and mitigated as far as possible potential risks in peoples’ homes. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Risks to people and staff, within people’s homes, were identified on environmental risk assessments and were well managed.

The provider did not always ensure all required checks had been made prior to staff starting their roles.Staff did not receive effective training, support, supervision and development. At the time of the inspection the provider employed 2 staff.

Recruitment checks were completed prior to staff starting to work at the service; however, the 2 personnel files we reviewed did not contain full employment histories, and reasons for gaps in employment were not explored or documented. The provider told us they would audit and updated the files where needed. The application form was updated to include this information following our inspection.

There was no overview of staff training. The provider was initially unable to tell us what staff training they considered mandatory, when staff had last completed training or when it was due. Mandatory training was detailed in the company training policy. Records showed staff had not received the training they needed to undertake their roles effectively. There were no records of staff competency checks or spot checks in place. The provider told us they worked regularly at people’s homes, so always checked staff performance by asking people who used the service. However, there were no records of checks of staff performance. Following our inspection the provider showed us they had developed a new training matrix and told us all staff training would be reviewed and updated.

Policies in relation to the provider’s expectations of frequency of supervision were contradictory. Records showed that supervision and team meetings were infrequent. Support and training were identified as concerns at the last CQC inspection and a recommendation had been made relating to this. However, no improvements had been made since the last inspection, and the same issues were identified at this inspection.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Visits were planned and organised well, and staff had the time needed to get to know people. Relatives were positive about the way the service was run and organised.

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. Personal protective equipment was available and used appropriately.

Medicines were managed and administered safely. Relatives confirmed people received medicines as prescribed; however, medicines training frequency and competency checks did not reflect good practice guidance.