Yorhealth (Supported Living) Ltd - Midlands

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 changed 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. Relatives told us when incidents happened, they felt they were managed well by the provider and the staff. Staff could describe how incidents were reported and how these were then discussed to provide any learning. Partners told us there was a strong commitment from the provider to learn and they felt the provider had made significant progress with improvements through using a systematic approach to continuous learning and staff development. The provider ensured all incidents were reviewed and where required learning was shared with staff and support plans were updated. For example, where people experienced distressed behaviours staff and manager discussed these to consider any possible triggers and how they could update people’s support plans to prevent this from happening again. The provider ensured learning featured in their governance arrangements and there was oversight in place to ensure learning was applied.

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. The provider had systems in place which worked in partnership with other agencies to support people safely. The processes included assessing people’s needs, providing individual risk assessments and support plans to guide staff on supporting people. Partners told us the provider followed a structured process for assessing individuals before they begin using the service and shared examples of successful transitions into the service. Staff told us they felt able to support people following their transition into the service as the information provided helped them to understand people’s needs.

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 were protected from the risk of abuse by staff who had received training and understood how to recognise the signs of abuse. Staff could describe the steps they would take to protect people and report any concerns. A relative told us, “I don’t really have any concerns about [person’s name] safety. I can go out and leave the staff in the house, I trust them.” The provider had a policy in place and systems to ensure any incidents were reported to the relevant safeguarding authority.

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. Relatives told us staff understood how to support people safely and manage risks to their safety. They gave examples of how people were supported with personal care, meals and activities in a way which maintained safety. Staff were aware of the risks to people’s safety and could describe the steps they took to keep people safe. Risks were assessed and plans were put in place to minimise the risks. Risk assessments were individual for the person and management plans detailed how to support the person. We saw moving and handling, accessing the community and supporting distressed behaviours. The provider had systems in place to review risk assessments when incidents happened and at regular intervals making changes as needed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People were supported in safe environments. A relative told us, “The staff clean the bedroom, lounge and bathroom and shower room. They keep it tidy.” Staff told us how they supported people to maintain a safe environment. We saw risk assessments had taken place of people’s home environments and steps had been taken to keep people safe. The provider had regular checks in place of the environment to ensure peoples environment was safely maintained.

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 were supported by staff who had been trained to support their specific needs. A relative told us, “The staff always arrive when they should.” Staff felt confident in their training and said this was kept up to date, staff told us they felt there were enough staff to offer support to people. Records we saw supported this. Staff were recruited safely and had an induction into their role. We saw staff were matched to be part of a team supporting individuals. This process ensured people were comfortable with the staff supporting them. The provider had oversight of staff recruitment, training and rotas to ensure there was sufficient suitably qualified staff available to support people.

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 were supported by staff who understood how to protect them from the risk of cross infection. A relative told us, “The staff wear mask, gloves, and aprons when doing personal care with [person’s name].” Staff told us they were aware of the policy in place to reduce the risk of cross infection and had access to protective equipment. Staff had received training in how to prevent the spread of infection and there was an infection prevention control.

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 received their medicines as prescribed. A relative told us, “The staff give medicines and use a medicine administration record sheet which comes from the pharmacy to record medicines [person’s name] takes.” Staff told us they had training, and their competency was assessed to ensure they were able to administer medicines safely. The provider told us there was a policy in place and this guided staff on how to support people. We saw there were individual risk assessments in place to support staff to understand how people needed to have their medicines administered. Where people had medicines prescribed to be administered on an ‘as required’ basis there were protocols in place to support staff to administer these medicines which were linked to peoples support plans.