Archived: Select Lifestyles 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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 59 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider monitored the number and types of incidents, which could help them identify trends and themes. However, they did not use this data to further analyse the root causes of these incidents. As a result, the process was less effective, and the provider was limited in how they could use this information to improve the service. For example, the provider had reviewed and reported on the number of incidents between January and October 2025, they found there was a reduction in the overall number of incident suggesting improvements or under reporting leaving an unclear finding with no clear confirmation of which finding was correct. Additionally, information collected highlighted medicines as the most reported incident and showed the type of medicines incident. When discussed with leaders they told us there was no additional analysis taking place at the time of the assessment to discover the cause. For example, there were 4 incidents reported for medicines being administered but not signed for but this did not identify similarities or differences in these incidents and would therefore be unable to take effective action to mitigate similar incidents in the future.

Following the assessment, the provider shared an action tracker which identified the actions taken to address issues they had identified.

Staff we spoke with told us they would follow the incident reporting process if this was required and speak with their manager and could recall actions taken following the incident outcome.

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.

The provider utilised a mixture of systems to support transitions for people using their service. Leaders told us care plans are shared in advance with other providers when transferring to another service and provide pretransfer support days to allow people to familiarise themselves with the staff and service before they arrive.

The provider used hospital passports to support people attending hospital admissions or visits, and the service worked with other services where required, such as local mental health services, to support people with additional mental health needs.

No concerns were raised by staff or people using the service regarding pathways or transitions.

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 safeguarding systems in place, and the safeguarding policy outlined the use of a flowchart to support staff in how they should respond to concerns. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities.

Staff told us they would report any concerns to managers and document the incident. When asked about the safeguarding policy, one staff member said, “There is a printed copy. It is kept in a locked cupboard with staff access only. I will first report to my manager I could also make a call to the safeguarding unit and log my issue.

Training records confirmed staff had completed safeguarding training.

Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe. One relative said, “I believe [person] is safe. There have been no untoward incidents in the last year.”

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Although risks to people had been considered to ensure the service followed the right support, right care, right culture guidance. Where decisions had been made to support people with their finances, we found staff were not always following these decision plans correctly meaning people were at risk of having their money restricted in a way which had not been agreed. These decisions had not always involved other professionals or advocates, limiting peoples voice to ensure the decision made on behalf of each person was the most appropriate. However, where decisions had been made to store people ’s medicine, money and spare room keys outside the control of people these decisions had been made by the provider and included people and their families to explore what would be best for each person and with rationales for doing so.

We saw people were supported safely, with staff supporting people to take part in activities they enjoyed, such as taking people the football matches. Care plans contained detailed information and guidance on how to support people and manage risks. For example, one person needed full support during mealtimes, but staff were also reminded to encourage maximum independence with detailed guidance on how to ensure each step is safe for the person but not limiting.

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

We did not always find people’s homes followed the ‘right support, right care, right culture’ guidance. Whilst the provider told us ongoing discussions with ourselves and the Local Authority were taking place, at the time of our assessment we saw fingerprint scanners for staff clock-ins and staff signage were visible in some of the locations in addition to desks and office spaces.

People we spoke with mostly shared positive feedback about the environment and did not raise any concerns. One relative told us, “[person] uses a trolley around the house, there is enough space for [person] to get around.”

However, one person did describe difficulty accessing all areas of their home, when we raised this with the provider, they had already identified this and were discussing it with the occupational therapy team.

People’s bedrooms appeared to be safe and contained decorations and personal belongings unique to them. Areas were clear of any blockages, allowing people to access escape routes. Staff had access to appropriate firefighting equipment.

The management team described a clear process for monitoring the safety of the environment. For example, the registered manager required staff to complete audits to ensure the premises was safe.

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.

The provider had a system in place to monitor support hours, which alerted managers to where people had not received support. At the time of the inspection some staff were required to sign in using fingerprint readers. Leaders had identified this as something they were looking into removing and had an alternative system to monitor staff hours but had not done so

at the time of the assessment.

Recruitment and induction processes were in place to ensure staff had the core skills and values needed to support people safely. Leaders accounted for staff experience through skill-based interviews to assess suitability. New staff received induction training and were supported by leaders through shadowing, competency checks, and supervision before they worked alone. Staff received training and systems were in place to ensure they remained up to date.

Staff we spoke with told us they received training and support from leaders.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives. For example, one person told us, “Sometimes there don’t seem to be many carers, it tends to be at holiday times” and another person told us, “There is always a carer there and they always go with them when they go out.”

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Some information shared with an audit completed in January with some checks for infection prevention and control (IPC) however this contained limited information, there was also a regional managers audit but this omitted IPC.

The service had systems in place to monitor IPC. At the time of the assessment systems of monitoring were not fully embedded, the provider shared a copy of their audit which was not completed, the provider told us this was the form they intended to use moving forward. In addition, the provider shared another audit they had completed for another service, but the IPC section was incomplete with IPC showing as 0% on the overall summary section.

However, during our visit we noted personal protective equipment, such as gloves, were available for staff to use where appropriate. However, the equipment was not always stored in the most appropriate places, in line with Right support, right care, right culture, as it was stored in communal spaces with no reason. Following the site visit, we discussed this with the service, and they moved PPE to more appropriate areas. Staff told us, people living at the service were encouraged to take part in cleaning activities where appropriate, supporting their independence while maintaining safe standards.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning

The provider had systems in place to monitor medicines administration, the provider collected information on the number of incidents and their sub type. Although this information was being gathered, at the time of the assessment leaders confirmed no additional analysis was completed to identify the causes of the incidents. This reduced the providers ability to address the root cause of incidents. Following the assessment leaders told us they would review this system and add additional analysis within their processes to better mitigate risks to people.

Where medicine was stored outside of people’s rooms, stock checks were routinely completed. We found stock was monitored correctly and logs were up to date and accurate. However, we did not always find medicines to be safely stored, in one of the locations we found the controlled drugs cupboard could be accessed by any staff with access to the medicines cupboard as the key had been left in the lock. This meant there was a lack of control measures around the storage of controlled drugs which increased the risk of people receiving their medicines unsafely.

Systems were in place to support staff with medicines management, including training, protocols, and audits. Protocols were in place which offered guidance for staff in the use and administration of medicines as well as any associated risks and when emergency services should be called.