Yourlife (Rugby)

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 inspection 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.

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.

Staff recorded and reported any accidents and incidents. The provider had systems to monitor and review accident and incident reports to ensure actions had been taken to keep people safe and to improve the quality and safety of the service.

In response to some medication errors, managers in the service had completed an external ‘learning from medication errors’ course. This had increased confidence in responding to and learning from medicines errors.

Staff described a learning culture which made them confident to own their mistakes. One staff member told us, “I would be very happy to go and tell someone if I had made a mistake, you can’t hide things like that because this is people's lives." The registered manager explained, “We treat it as a learning event rather than immediately going down the disciplinary process; what have they learnt as a person and what have we learnt as an organisation."

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.

There were processes to support a smooth transition to the service provided by Your Life (Rugby). The registered manager gave an example of a person who had moved to Knox Court under the care of another provider. The staff team had shadowed the care calls with the previous provider so they could ensure a smooth transition into their care.

Information about people’s health, communication, immediate support needs, medication and their wishes for future care could be shared with other healthcare professionals in an emergency.

When people received in-patient hospital care or had respite care with another provider, managers liaised with family or the discharge team, to support people’s safe transition back to their home.

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.

Staf had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibility to report any concerns people were at risk of harm, abuse or discrimination. When we gave 1 staff member a safeguarding scenario, they responded, “I would report it to the duty manager and then they would put in a safeguarding about it.”

The registered manager liaised with social workers at the local authority to ensure the right action had been taken to keep people safe if a safeguarding concern had been raised.

The registered manager was aware of schemes they could utilise to safeguard people whilst respecting their independence. For example, the Herbert Protocol, which is a preventative, national, police-led scheme for recording vital information about vulnerable people who may go missing. Safeguarding information was displayed on notice boards within the service.

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’s health and safety were identified and assessed. Care plans provided clear guidance for staff on how to mitigate risks and support people safely. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected any changes in people’s circumstances.

People were supported to understand risks and how to keep themselves safe, both at home and in the local community. This included visits from other organisations and agencies such as local police community support officers and the fire service. One relative told us, “The fire service visited last year and did a check on all of us. The managers here organised that, it was good. We also had a talk from the police; they spoke about computer scams and about keeping yourself safe. They told us about what they are doing in our local community to manage crime.”

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

Environmental risks within people’s homes were identified during the assessment process. Information was included in people’s care plans about any actions staff should take to keep people safe.

Following any accidents, managers completed a health and safety check to identify any environmental risks that may have been a contributory factor.

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 told us staff were reliable and came when they were expected. One relative told us, “They come on time, they apologise if they are even 2 minutes late. They have a routine; they know who needs what help so it works. You’re not left waiting.” Another relative said, “I always know what carers are coming in the morning. I can ask at reception, or they (staff) tell me from their phone. It’s the same ones that come regularly. They are all lovely.”

Staff told us they had time within each call to meet people’s care and support needs without rushing. Staff said if they felt the allocated time for a care call was insufficient, they raised it with their manager. One staff member explained, "There have been a few times, and it was raised that we were feeling a bit rushed because things can change and sometimes you need a bit more time. But when that does happen, more time will be put onto the care call."

Duty managers allocated care calls and were able to step in to cover any gaps on the rota or unexpected absence.

Staff received training relevant to their role and duty managers completed observations of staff practice to make sure they continued to provide safe care.

The provider had processes to ensure all safe recruitment checks had been completed prior to staff starting with the service. Recruitment checks included staff identity checks, references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This helps providers make safe recruitment decisions.

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’s needs were assessed to identify any infection control risks or where people had conditions that made them more vulnerable to an infection. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available in people’s homes and care plans clearly described how and when it should be used by staff.

Staff received training in infection control and food hygiene. They confirmed they had the PPE required to mitigate the risk of infections spreading. Spot checks were carried out to ensure staff were following infection control guidelines.

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 told us they received their medicines on time. One person told us, “They get my tablets out in the morning and in the evening. I’ve never had any worries with that. They stay to watch me take my tablets. They don’t need to, but they do.”

People only received their medicines from staff who had received medication awareness training and successfully completed medication competency assessments. The administration of people’s medicines was recorded on an electronic medicines management system and staff had access to information, so they understood the medicines people were prescribed.

Care plans described people’s preferences for how they liked to be given their medicines. Protocols for medicines prescribed ‘as and when required’ included guidance in terms of the reason for administration, the required gap between doses and the maximum dose to be taken in 24 hours.