Minshull House

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 81 (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 strong and open learning culture. Lessons were learned from accidents, incidents and near misses and used to improve practice. For example, staff felt safe and confident to speak up, share learning and challenge practice, supported by a clear no‑blame approach focused on improvement. Learning was regularly gathered from incidents, feedback from people and families, and reflective reviews between stays. This learning was then used to improve support, strengthen safety systems and personalise care, so people’s experiences improved over time.

Managers actively supported learning through supervision, team discussions, audits and partnership working. As a result, learning was meaningful, well embedded and led to safer care, greater consistency and better outcomes. Records showed a clear reduction in incidents, demonstrating the positive impact of this approach.

The provider worked closely with people, families and healthcare partners to put safe and effective systems of care in place and respond quickly when needed. For example, staff created exceptionally strong, proactive and person‑centred pathways that consistently kept people safe while enabling them to enjoy meaningful, well‑planned short breaks away from home. Staff embedded safety processes into everyday practice and shaped them around people’s individual and often changing needs.

The service operated highly effective pathways for referral, admission, planning each stay and returning home. Staff gathered detailed information in advance from people, families, carers and professional partners so they understood each person’s needs, risks, communication methods, sensory preferences and routines before every stay. Staff reviewed plans before each stay, recognising people’s needs could change between visits. Families praised this process, telling us communication before, during and after stays was “Very thorough” and “Spot on,” which helped their relatives feel safe and settled.

Managers and staff demonstrated particularly strong practice in supporting young people transitioning from children’s services into adult short‑break provision. Managers began transition planning early and worked in close partnership with families, children’s services and adult professionals. Staff shared information gradually and thoughtfully, allowing them to build a detailed understanding of the young person before their first adult stay. The service introduced support flexibly through familiarisation visits and carefully planned short breaks that matched existing routines and communication styles. Families told us this approach “Made all the difference” and reduced anxiety during what could otherwise have been a difficult time.

Families consistently said they felt reassured how staff handled transitions. One family member told us they were “100% confident [relative] is safe” and said, “We would not allow them to go if we had any concerns at all.” Another family said staff “Know [relative] very well” and “understand their routines and the importance of sticking to them,” which was especially important during periods of change.

Partnership working was exceptionally strong during times of increased risk, crisis or significant transition. In one complex transition, a professional partner praised the service, saying: “Your commitment to ensuring this person remained safe, comfortable and well cared for throughout this transition has been truly commendable. The professionalism, compassion and flexibility shown by your staff reflect the highest standards of care and made a significant positive impact during what could have been a very challenging time.”

Managers and staff also worked collaboratively with partner agencies to deliver emergency or extended respite, including for people at risk of hospital admission. During these situations, staff worked closely with multidisciplinary teams to manage risks safely in the community and avoid unnecessary hospital placements.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to each individual and how best to achieve this. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while actively protecting their right to live safely and free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. For example, managers and staff shared safeguarding concerns promptly and appropriately and there were clear safeguarding systems across the service to protect people from harm.

Staff at all levels showed confidence and competence in recognising safeguarding concerns, understanding thresholds and taking timely and appropriate action. When concerns arose, managers and staff acted on them without delay, recorded them accurately and escalated them through the correct channels. Staff at all levels worked effectively with families, local authorities and professional partners to respond to concerns and safeguard people.

Managers maintained clear oversight of safeguarding practice. They reviewed concerns, incidents and feedback and used learning from these to strengthen safeguarding systems and improve outcomes for people.

The provider worked closely with people to understand and manage risks in a person‑centred and strengths‑based way. For example, managers and staff involved people and, where appropriate, their families, advocates and professional partners in discussions about risk, using approaches that reflected individual communication needs and levels of understanding. Families told us they felt included and reassured, with one saying, “They explain things clearly and involve us in decisions about keeping [relative] safe.”

Positive risk‑taking was well embedded, with risks balanced thoughtfully against people’s rights, independence and wellbeing and reviewed in partnership before and during each stay. Professional partners echoed this view, describing risk management as “Well considered and not risk‑averse,” and “Support people to live fuller lives while managing risk safely.”

There were safe infection prevention and control (IPC) arrangements in place to protect people, visitors and staff from the risk of infection. For example, clear policies and procedures were followed consistently, supported by regular cleaning schedules, safe waste management and appropriate use of personal protective equipment where required.

Staff completed IPC training and understood their responsibilities for infection prevention and demonstrated good practice, including hand hygiene and maintaining clean environments. Managers maintained oversight of IPC through checks and reviews, and action was taken promptly where improvements were identified.

The provider ensured staff were provided with effective support, supervision and development, which created exceptionally strong and flexible staffing arrangements. For example, managers planned staffing levels and skill mix carefully around each person’s assessed needs, risks and preferred routines. When planning rotas, managers actively considered people’s communication styles, sensory needs and situations known to cause worry, upset or anxiety.

Managers followed robust and consistent recruitment processes to ensure only suitable staff supported people. These processes included enhanced background checks, verification of identity and right to work, thorough reference checks and role‑specific interviews that explored values, skills and experience in supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people. Managers prioritised safety, shared values and continuity when making recruitment decisions, which supported a stable and trusted workforce.

Managers deployed staff effectively so they could respond quickly to people’s changing needs during short‑break stays. Rotas promoted continuity and reduced the use of unfamiliar staff, which people and families valued. One family member told us, “[Relative] gets on especially well with [staff member’s name] and they plan their shifts around [relative’s] stays.” Families expressed strong confidence in staff, telling us, “I trust the staff to care for [relative] as well as I do,” “They are amazing, nothing is too much trouble,” and “They are so skilled at what they do – excellent care from each and every one of them.”

Managers also placed a strong focus on staff wellbeing and engagement. Staff told us managers were consistently visible, approachable and supportive. One staff member said, “The support from managers is amazing – they are so supportive and very approachable.” Managers closely monitored staffing arrangements and adjusted resources promptly to maintain safety.

Staff completed relevant training including mandatory training on interacting with people with a learning disability and autistic people through staff attending the Oliver McGowan training, to provide kind, respectful and inclusive care for people with a learning disability and autistic people.

Managers held regular, well‑attended team meetings and actively encouraged open discussion. Staff described meetings as supportive and inclusive, saying managers “Ask how we are and if we have any views,” and “Make sure everyone gets the chance to speak.” Staff reported feeling confident to raise concerns and share ideas, describing the culture as “Very relaxed” and saying they were “Not scared to speak up.”

There were safe infection prevention and control (IPC) arrangements in place to protect people, visitors and staff from the risk of infection. For example, clear policies and procedures were followed consistently, supported by regular cleaning schedules, safe waste management and appropriate use of personal protective equipment where required.

Staff completed IPC training and understood their responsibilities for infection prevention and demonstrated good practice, including hand hygiene and maintaining clean environments. Managers maintained oversight of IPC through checks and reviews, and action was taken promptly where improvements were identified.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. For example, there were safe systems ensuring people received their medicines safely, appropriately and in line with their individual needs during their stay. Information about people’s medicines was gathered in advance from families and professional partners, and staff understood the importance of using medicines safely. Clear procedures were followed for the storage, administration and recording of medicines.

Managers and staff were aware of and supported the principles of STOMP (Stopping the Over‑Medication of People with a learning disability, autism or both).

Staff supporting people with medicines were trained and assessed as competent, and medicines were administered in a respectful, person‑centred way that considered peoples communication needs and preferences.