North Supported Living Service

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

Leaders prioritised people’s safety. They learned from specific incidents, accidents and risks at the service and also from good practice updates and other events in social care. For instance, they had improved smoking risk awareness recently, and proactively shared learning with staff about how best to safely support people with finances and social media usage.

The culture was an open one in which staff could ask questions and mistakes were reflected on as a means of learning. One staff member told us, “When we were supporting [person] to be more independent there were times when we didn’t get things 100% right, but we were supported to reflect on that and get it right next time.” One relative said, “They don’t pretend to know it all, which is refreshing – they reach out for opinions and help.”

People were always safe and protected from bullying, harassment, avoidable harm, neglect, abuse and discrimination. Their liberty was protected in their best interests and in line with legislation.

People were involved in planning and reviewing their care from the outset, and in significant depth, which helped increase staff awareness and reduce risks.

The provider worked well with people and partners to ensure internal systems supported safer care, with a focus on continuity and consistency.

Staff worked well with a variety of external professionals, such as social workers and nurses, to ensure people experienced the safest approach when people had to access different services and settings.

People and their relatives had a lot of confidence in staff knowing what to do to keep them safe. One relative said, “There’s a clear system of support in place. Staff know their roles and [person] is safe.”

External partners gave positive feedback about the proactive approach of the service. They confirmed the service regularly monitored people’s changing needs and communicated those well to reduce risks.

Risk assessments and care plans were detailed, person-centred and up to date.

The provider had comprehensive and effective safeguarding measures in place. Staff worked hard to balance helping people have improved quality of life, alongside protecting their basic rights, such as to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

The provider worked well with people to understand what being safe meant to them, meaning risk planning and reduction was fully inclusive of their preferences. This helped reduce unforeseen risks.

Staff were well trained and clear about their safeguarding responsibilities. Any concerns were shared promptly and appropriately with the right external agencies. One relative said, “The staff advocate well and would raise safety concerns.”

People, and their relatives, raised no concerns about their safety. One person said, “I’m happy here and the staff are very nice.”

The provider had up to date policies and training in place to support safeguarding

The provider worked with people to understand risks and to make their own decisions about how they wanted to help manage risks. There were clear systems in place to monitor risks and to update care plans and risk assessments when required. Risk assessments were detailed and person-centred. They were particularly strong where people had taken control of their own level of risk management and contributed to risk assessments which set out exactly what they would do, and what staff needed to be mindful of. For instance, in relation to diabetes management.

People’s safety when accessing activities and places independently was well considered, with no unnecessary restrictions in place and people’s right to choose respected.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of risks and how to reduce them. Relatives had confidence in staff balancing the risks people faced, alongside their rights to take risks. One said, “They make sure [person] doesn’t go too far on their own but they get the balance right between encouraging them to be mobile and not taking too big a risk.”

Staff continually assessed risk in people’s home environments and helped them reduce these risks.

Where people’s independence grew and positive risk taking increased, staff rightly flagged any concerns and ensured these were considered in a balanced and fair way.

Staff had regard to people’s personal and shared environments, assessing for risks and ensuring they were safe.

Environments had a positive impact on people’s approach to risk and their quality of life outcomes. For instance, one person had chosen colours/furnishings and helped decorate in a style that made them feel calmer; one person’s passion for gardening was supported in a way that saw them increase their independence and be at less risk of low mood.

People were supported to maintain their own flats and homes independently. They took pride in their homes and helped reduce environmental risks.

The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who receive effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked well together to provide safe care that meets people’s needs. The staff team was stable and there was no reliance on agency staffing. One relative said, “They’ve built up a good relationship and [person] knows they can rely on them.”

Shifts and rotas were well planned. Staff worked flexibly when needed, supporting each other, leaders and, most importantly, people who used the service, when unexpected staffing pressures arose.

One staff member said, “It works both ways – I know they (provider) support me when I need to be flexible but equally I’m here to support people who need a level of consistency, and I respect that.”

The provider ensured there were a range of pre-employment checks prior to staff working with people who used the service. People who used the service had contributed to the recruitment process by submitting questions to interview panels. The provider hoped people could be more involved in the future.

People’s homes were clean, free from clutter and well maintained. People contributed to this by completing a range of household tasks appropriate to their level of skill and independence, and they were evidently proud of their home set up.

They and their relatives raised no concerns about infection control. Staff used PPE when needed and received appropriate training and support.

The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place.

The provider had worked well with external clinicians to ensure people’s medicines were reviewed regularly and met their needs. Protocols were in place for people on ‘when required’ medicines, with clear instructions for staff. The provider acted in line with STOMP, which stands forStopping the Over Medication of People with learning disabilities, autism or both. This is a national NHS project focused on reducing the inappropriate use of medicines.

The provider ensured that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs. People were involved with planning and administration when they preferred and were able. Staff knew people’s medicines needs well.

Staff received regular competency checks of their medicines practice to make sure they were safe and confident. Medicines records were regularly audited and any errors acted on promptly.