The YOU Trust

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. Staff demonstrated a robust understanding of actions they needed to take in response to a safety event. The senior management team analysed safety events and shared any learning with staff. This reduced the risk of similar safety events occurring in the future.

A professional told us, “When things do not go to plan, there is a clear culture of reflection and learning to continually improve practice.”

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 supported several people to successfully move between services; they ensured transitions were person led. When people started receiving support from the service staff developed relationships with the person and understood what really mattered to them. For example, staff identified a person was living in an environment that was no longer suitable. They worked with the person, their family and their advocate to identify a suitable single occupancy flat. They worked in partnership with professionals and reassured the person and their family to alleviate concerns and ensured plans were reviewed at every step. The person now lives in their own home and has increased their independence. A professional told us, “…the transition was managed in a sensitive and planned way, reducing distress for all involved.”

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.

A professional who works with the service told us, “Staff demonstrate a strong awareness of safeguarding and take proactive steps to ensure risks are well managed while still promoting independence.”

The service investigated and shared concerns appropriately and reported to the relevant agencies. Where people were deprived of their liberty, Community deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (c-DoLs) applications were made to legally authorise restrictions placed on them to keep them safe.

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 were assessed and actions taken to reduce the risk of harm. For example, risk assessments and support plans were completed in relation to risk of skin breakdown, malnutrition and falls. These were regularly reviewed and updated. We observed staff supporting people in line with their risk assessments and support plans.

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 encouraged to take part in checking the safety of their homes and the equipment they used. For individuals who felt anxious about fire alarms, tailored support was provided to build understanding and reduce fear. By involving them in alarm testing at home, a person successfully gained the confidence and ability to evacuate independently when the alarm sounded.

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.

Staff all told us they felt the training was good and gave them the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Staff received regular support, supervision meetings and yearly appraisals. Staff completed the mandatory training requirement on learning disability and autism.

People said, “I trust my staff, we do things together and I feel very safe”.

Staff were mostly recruited safely. However, staff conduct in all relevant roles had not always been checked during the recruitment process. The risk to people was mitigated because the provider ensured new staff did not work alone until they were assured staff could work safely and effectively. Following our inspection the provider has updated their recruitment policy to ensure conduct is checked during the recruitment process in line with legislation.

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.

Staff supported people to keep their homes clean and safe from infection. Staff used Personal Protective Equipment when needed, understood how to stop infections spreading and spot checks were completed regularly. Staff encouraged people to maintain their personal hygiene, keep their homes clean, some people had developed their skills and could tell us how to stop germs spreading and stay 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.

When people were prescribed medicines to take ‘when required’ for periods of agitation or distress, staff had clear, person-centred guidance on how and when to administer them. We saw evidence people were supported in line with this guidance, to ensure they were only administered as a last resort. Staff knew how to report medicine concerns and followed guidance. Creams were used with clear body maps to ensure people had creams administered safely. Staff were trained, competent, and regularly assessed to make sure best practice was followed and people received their medicines safely.