Avalon Northallerton Services

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 listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider was committed to continuous improvement of the service. The provider was forward-thinking, and they anticipated potential issues and had plans in place to mitigate these risks.

There was a robust system in place to monitor and review accidents and incidents to ensure learning always took place. Learning was shared across the whole organisation.

Staff were encouraged to be involved in the continuous improvement and development of the service. Staff were involved in regular discussions about the visions and values of the service and were encouraged to speak up without blame. One staff member told us, “Staff meetings are regular and important, we are informed of any changes or improvements that are needed anywhere,so concerns are dealt with and talked about.”

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 were well supported to access other services including healthcare organisations. Staff supported people to attend appointments and knew how to do this in a way which worked for each person as an individual. One professional told us staff sought medical attention when needed and, “[Staff] support people who might be feeling anxious about appointments well.”

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 had a good understanding of safeguarding and knew how to recognise any concerns and respond to these appropriately. One staff member told us, “I would make the person feel as safe as possible and report to management. I would inform emergency services if needed. I would document and give reassurance and raise a safeguarding alert.”

People told us they felt safe, and their needs were met. Relatives told us their loved ones were safe and well cared for.

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 to people were appropriately assessed and support plans implemented. Staff knew people’s needs well and understood how to support people safely and how to manage and balance risk.

There were some areas where recording around potential risks could have been more detailed, for example around the preparation of food and the monitoring of fluid intake. The registered manager introduced more comprehensive recording immediately following our feedback.

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

Staff knew what to do if there was an emergency in the environment and they knew where all relevant information was kept. Staff spoke competently about the procedures to follow if there were any environmental incidents, there were clear processes to follow, and there was an on-call system for staff to use if they needed extra support.

Staff ensured people’s properties were kept tidy and they raised and dealt with any maintenance issues in a timely manner.

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.

Staff were recruited safely with appropriate pre-employment checks in place. Wherever possible, people were supported by consistent staff teams.

Staff spoke positively about the training they had received and spoke competently about their roles and responsibilities. One staff member told us, “We receive a great amount of training for our job role. I have received mandatory training, and other courses have been offered which I’ve taken up optionally to broaden my knowledge.”

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.

People were supported to keep their properties clean and tidy. Staff had access to PPE and the provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to support good management of infection prevention and control.

Staff supported people to be involved in good hygiene practices and to increase their independence in this area.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Medicines were stored securely and administered as prescribed.

Protocols were in place for ‘when required’ medicines so staff knew when to administer these. When they were administered, the reason was recorded and whether the medicine had been effective. This meant their use could be monitored.

Staff did not record the exact timing of the administration of one time critical medicine, which meant there was a risk of this medicine being administered too early. We found no evidence this had occurred. The registered manager implemented documentation to record the exact time of administration immediately following our feedback.