Priory Supported Living Hull & East Riding

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 investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The management team reviewed all safeguarding, accident and incident records to identify any responsive action required. Any lessons learned were discussed with the team in safety huddles, staff meetings and governance meetings.

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. Relatives and external professionals told us staff supported people to transition well when they moved into the service. There was good communication between partners and transition plans were developed and followed. A professional told us, “The support workers made sure to get to know my client and adapt the style of support they provided to them to ensure they responded in the best way possible.”

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. Staff were aware of signs of potential abuse, and how to report any concerns. They were confident management would deal with any issues appropriately. Staff had opportunity to share concerns at any time, including via supervision and team meetings. People using the service were also encouraged to raise any concerns or worries in individual reviews or during tenant’s meetings. Where required, applications had been submitted to lawfully deprive people of their liberty and staff received training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act.

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. It was very evident people’s views were respected in decisions about risk, including some decisions that others may consider unwise. Staff demonstrated good understanding of potential risks relating to each person, such as mobility, choking, health and wellbeing risks. Relevant support and equipment were provided, where required, to help minimise these potential risks. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed. Risk assessments in relation to safe use of bed rails were not always completed consistently with clear information for staff about how to manage potential risks in relation to bed rails. The provider addressed this straightaway.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Each person was supported in their own self-contained flat and had a tenancy with the landlord of the property. Individual supported living environmental risk assessments were in place, and the provider took action to put additional measures in place following incidents that highlighted any new environmental risks. The provider supported people to report any maintenance issues to the landlord, and appropriate safety checks were conducted on the property and equipment. A relative raised a concern about the property’s accessibility for one person. The provider was liaising with relevant agencies about this issue.

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 and most relatives told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. One person told us night staff did not always respond to them in a timely way. The management team acted in response to this feedback and told us they would continue to monitor this. The provider had systems to ensure that people received care in line with their commissioned support hours, and there was an allocation system to ensure staff were organised and knew what support they needed to provide each day.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed by the provider and appropriate checks conducted. Staff were very satisfied with the induction, training and supervision they received. During the assessment, the provider organised additional training on supporting people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people, to meet national requirements. Visiting professionals and most relatives commended the staff team and one relative told us, “I can’t praise them enough.”

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. Infection prevention and control policies and procedures were in place, and staff completed training in this area. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and knew when and how to use this. The management team completed competence checks to ensure staff followed best practice.

Medicines systems and procedures were in place, but some improvements were required to ensure more consistent compliance with best practice. We noted some anomalies in medicines records, and aspects of record keeping which could be clearer. There had been some recent medicines errors; these had been appropriately reported and the management team were in the process of making improvements at the time of our assessment. People were fully involved in decisions relating to their medicines. Staff promoted people’s independence, whilst balancing this with any potential risks involved. People were satisfied with the support they received with their medicines. Staff received training and understood the importance of safe medicines management, but continued attention was required to ensure best practice was consistently followed.