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 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 had a process in place to report concerns. The management team ensured relevant authorities such as CQC and the 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 felt safe when staff entered their home. Information was provided in an accessible format which informed people how they could raise concerns about their care/support.

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

Staff were trained to support people under the age of 18. They 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 and support 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.

Support plans and risk assessments identified potential risks to people’s safety. This included risks such as the support people needed when going to local shops and other amenities, without unnecessarily restricting their freedom. Measures were put in place to support people in the least restrictive way, whilst monitoring the potential risks to the person’s safety as well as the safety of staff and members of the public.

Prior to receiving care, initial assessments were completed by the local authority and with the provider, alongside the person who would be receiving care and support. Where appropriate their relative or appointed advocates were also involved. The level of care and support required from staff was agreed and detailed support plans put in place.

If a 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.

Support plans contained clear risk assessments and considered people’s capacity, choices, and preferences.Environment risk assessments had been completed for each person’s home. Each person had individualised personal emergency evacuation plans in place. This helped to keep people safe in an emergency.

Staff told us they had access to support plans, and they provided sufficient information and guidance 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 well together to provide safe care and support that met people’s individual needs.

People’s individual needs were assessed and the appropriate staff assigned to ensure they received the care and support 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.

Staff completed 12 hour shifts. They told us these shifts were manageable and enabled them to provide focused care and support that encouraged people to follow their interests and to play an active role in their local communities. The registered manager was confident that the shift patterns they had in place enabled people to receive care and support from a small, focused, consistent and informed team of staff.

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. During our assessment the provider agreed to review this process with the aim of completing these checks prior to staff commencing any work to help keep vulnerable people safe.

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 medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. Where able, staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

This included supporting people to store medicines safely within their homes, helping with administration when required and disposing of unused medicines. Where it had been assessed as it being unsafe for medicines to be stored in areas accessed by the person; these had been stored securely in locked cabinets in areas inaccessible to the person. This helped to keep people free from the risks associated with medicines.

Each person had individualised medicine support 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. Staff received training and had an assessment of their competency from the management team before they carried out medicines support independently. The provider had a robust medicines policy to guide staff in line with safe practice and organisational processes.This meant there was a reduced risk of people coming to harm.