Alas Healthcare (Leeds)

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

Not rated.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this key question.

We have not awarded this service a score for Safe.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Safe.

The service had not experienced any incidents or accidents; however, systems and policies were in place to guide staff on how these should be managed if they occurred. The registered manager explained that people’s care plans would be updated following any incident to reflect changes in their needs. Staff were confident about the required procedures should an accident or incident happen. One staff member told us, “I would document it and call the registered manager. I would complete an accident report."

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

The service worked with people 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.

No safeguarding concerns had been reported. Staff had completed safeguarding adults training, and an up-to-date safeguarding policy was in place. One staff member told us, “Protecting people from abuse and neglect is important. If I became aware of a colleague doing something wrong or abusing a person, I would inform the registered manager."

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.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

The provider did not always ensure there were enough suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff in post. Recruitment records showed gaps, including missing or unreliable references and one invalid identification check, and these concerns had not been identified through recruitment audits.

Staff received supervision and appraisals; however, the associated documents had not been signed by staff. Staff completed the provider’s mandatory training through a mix of face-to-face sessions and e-learning, and competency assessments were carried out to ensure they maintained the skills needed for their roles.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.