Coquet Trust

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 75 (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 actively listened to concerns about safety and thoroughly investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Incidents, accidents and complaints were investigated, and lessons were shared with staff. Leaders demonstrated duty of candour and communicated outcomes to families. Improvements were implemented following incidents to help prevent them happening again.

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. Safe systems were in place to manage referrals and transitions. People’s needs were assessed before they received support. Care plans included information about health and communication needs, including details of specific information to share with health professionals.

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. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and had up-to-date training. Safeguarding concerns were recorded, investigated promptly, and notifications made to relevant authorities. People and relatives said they felt the service was safe and knew who to contact if they had concerns.

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. Risk assessments were detailed and supported positive risk-taking. People and families were involved in reviews and decisions about safety. Staff used specific plans to manage distressed behaviours which were focused on using the least restrictive strategies.

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 and well maintained.

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. There were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. However, some relatives described there being frequent changes in staffing and agency usage. Staff felt staffing levels were appropriate. A staff member told us, “The staff team are very well trained and consistent. Recruitment checks, DBS records, and training matrices were complete. Staff received supervision and competency assessments for tasks like medication and hoisting. Families noted occasional reliance on agency staff, but rotas showed cover was maintained. Leaders were visible and supportive, and staff felt able to raise concerns.

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. Infection control measures were robust. Staff had IPC training and followed best practice.

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 administration records were accurate, and audits showed strong compliance with medicines processes. Staff were trained and competent in administration of medicines. Any issues with medicines were identified and addressed promptly.