Yourlife (Bury)

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 72 (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 reported safety events.

Systems and processes were in place for reporting and recording safety incidents, accidents and complaints. The provider had oversight of incidents and had trackers in place to identify patterns as well as any actions to mitigate risk. For example, we saw that there had been a small number of missed calls, and we saw that the registered manager had introduced a new checklist to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

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.

Assessments were undertaken to ensure that people's needscould be met. Accidents and incidents were monitored and action taken to mitigate risk. Information such as grab sheets were available to share with health professionals when people moved to hospital.

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.

People told us that they felt safe, one person said, “I feel safe and secure here and my family don’t worry about me.” Systems and processes were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff received safeguarding training and were able to outline the types of abuse people may experience. However, they were less clear about the local reporting arrangements, but these were on display and the provider agreed to update staff further.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. People were enabled to do the things that mattered to them.

People told us that they were supported by a consistent team of staff who knew them and their needs well. Care plans and risk assessments were in place, to guide staff on how people should be supported and risks mitigated. We saw that a person’s skin had deteriorated, and the service supported the person to access a specialist mattress to promote better skin integrity.

Risk assessments included an assessment of medicines, the environment, continence and moving and handling. The guidance to staff on the promotion of skin integrity would benefit from further detail, which the provider told us they would immediately action. Discussions were ongoing with people about how best to respond to falls and whether additional equipment would be beneficial.

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

The provider completed risk assessments to identify and manage risks in people’s homes. Processes were in place to enable concerns to be escalated and there was a duty manager on site for emergencies.

Communication between staff had been identified as an issue and there were plans to trial use of two-way radios.

People told us they received care and support from consistent staff, who came when they were supposed to and stayed for the agreed time. However, there were gaps in staff knowledge and staff reported a lack of support.

Staff were allocated to attend people’s homes to provide care and support alongside other duties. Some staff raised concerns about their ability to fulfil their responsibilities during periods when there was sickness and staff holidays. However, we saw that the provider was recruiting additional staff. There was some evidence of supervision, spot checks and staff meetings but there had been periods where they were infrequent. Staff reported a lack of support. The provider told us that they had an action plan and were taking steps to address the shortfalls which included more regular supervision and mediation.

There were gaps in staff knowledge, although there was a high level of compliance with the online line training. There was some face-to-face training specific to the service, but not all staff had attended, and they were not confident in key areas such as the specific arrangements for fire safety, safeguarding and first aid. The provider showed us a new induction programme and competency programme they had developed which they were introducing across all of their services.

Following our site visit the provider told us that they were expanding the mandatory/update training to include additional modules such as skin integrity.

There were clear recruitment processes in place for staff which included disclosure and barring checks, references and right to work. The provider had both online and paper documentation, and it was recommended that records are strengthened to ensure that the right to work checks completed are clearly recorded.

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 confirmed that they had access to appropriate personal protective equipment when they needed it. People told us that this was used appropriately, staff washed their hands, and staff kept their homes clean and tidy.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Medicine risk assessments and agreement forms were in place. However, at the time of our assessment only topical medicines were being administered by staff and there were clear records to demonstrate that the medicines were being given appropriately. The provider had a system to oversee medicines, and regular audits were being completed.