Yanah Care

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 improved to 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 had a process in place to report concerns. The management team ensured relevant authorities such as the CQC and Local Authority were informed of incidents or allegations of concern that could affect people’s safety. Staff had confidence any issues reported would be acted on by management.

Investigations were completed where required to determine the cause of the issue and to find a solution. Where needed, meetings were held with staff to discuss areas for improvement and to embed good practice.

Records showed accidents and incidents were recorded, investigated and regularly reviewed to help identify any themes or trends which could affect people’s on-going health and safety. This helped to reduce the risk to people’s safety.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

People told us they felt safe when staff entered their home. One person said, “I do feel very safe, as the carers are very thorough and strict with my care.” A relative said, “[Family member] feels safe, the staff are really lovely people; they are trustworthy and [family member] feels confident with their care.”

Records showed the provider kept clear records of any safeguarding concerns and where appropriate, reported them to the relevant authorities.

Staff who supported people under the age of 18 had completed Safeguarding Children training. This helped to protect them from harm.

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. This could involve staff supporting people to get dressed, to take their own medicines and to prepare a meal.

Care plans and risk assessments identified potential risks to people’s safety. This included risks such as people going out to the shops or other local amenities as well as risks within their home such as smoking, managing personal care and carrying out domestic tasks.

Prior to receiving care, initial assessments were completed with the person who would be receiving care and where appropriate their relative or appointed advocate. The level of care and support required from staff was agreed. Where the person was under the age of 18, the person’s parent or carer was fully involved with this process to agree the most appropriate care and support. This was provided by staff trained and experienced with caring for / supporting young people.

Care plans contained clear risk assessments and considered people’s capacity, choices and preferences.People and relatives told us they were involved with this process; however, many also stated they had not been involved with a formal follow up review of the care requirements. Many said they would welcome the opportunity to do so.

Staff told us they had access to care plans, and they provided sufficient information and guidance to for them to provide safe care and reduce risk.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for 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.

People’s individual needs were assessed and the appropriate staff assigned to ensure they received the care they needed. Staff were trained to support people with a learning disability, dementia and those under 18. This ensured people received care from well trained and experienced staff.

People and relatives told us staff normally arrived on time. Most told us they had a consistent team of staff which reassured them and made them feel safe. One person said, “I have 3 visits a day. They do my breakfast and any other tasks; I see 1 carer mostly for 5 or 6 days and different ones the other days. I feel very safe with them all, they come on time but can be flexible. They stay their allocated time, and it is the same at the weekend.”

Records showed the provider reviewed staff arrival and departure times to ensure people received the appropriate care and support required and which they had paid for.

Safe recruitment processes were in place. The provider had requested references and proof of identity documents as well as criminal record checks before staff started work. This helped to ensure people were cared for by appropriate staff. The provider stated that if a staff member had a criminal record check already carried out by a previous employer then they were allowed to shadow a full time member of staff until their new criminal record check was completed. We advised that it was best practice to complete these checks prior to them commencing any type of work with vulnerable people, including shadowing shifts. The provider agreed to review this process.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

People and relatives felt staff provided good support with medicines. One person said, “My medication is in blister packs, the carers remind and help me, I do the re-ordering.”

The provider made sure that people’s medicines were managed safely. This included supporting people to store them safely within their homes, helping with administration when required and disposing of unused medicines.

Each person had individualised medicine care plans and risk assessments. These informed staff of each person’s needs. This included the times they needed to take their medicines, the dosage and possible side effects.

We saw that staff received training and had an assessment of their competency from the management team before they carried out medicines support independently. Staff confirmed this. The provider had a robust medicines policy to guide staff in line with safe practice and organisational processes.

Where people had medicines that were to be given ‘as needed’ most had guidance for staff on when these should be administered. A small number of medicines did not. Although records showed these medicines had not been over-administered it is important that each ‘as needed’ medicine has their own separate protocol in place. The provider advised they would review all medicines care plans and processes to address this.

The management team had oversight of medicine administration and conducted regular audits to ensure safe practice.