Hylton Care

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

This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and relatives felt safe. Staff had good knowledge around their role and responsibility to safeguard people. The provider didn’t always involve all the relevant agencies when required. The provider would take necessary action to safeguard people when things went wrong, and they would involve people, relatives, staff and agencies such as the Local Authority. However, we found they were not adhering to their statutory duty to notify the CQC of certain events, incidents and accidents.

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.

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

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.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

There were multiple people and agencies involved in medication administration and management, and often this was done by relatives, therefore the provider did not have sole responsibility in this area or overall oversight. However, we found that through spot checks, observations, leaders delivering care on a regular basis, and effective communication with people and relatives, the provider had enough oversight to assure themselves that their involvement in medication optimisation was safe and effective.

To manage the complex aspects of some people’s medication administration arrangements, the provider ensured detailed instructions for each regular medication was available for staff on their digital E-MAR system.

Some people had pro re nata (PRN) medications, which were not to be taken regularly, but only when required. We found at first, that the provider had not ensured there was enough detail for staff on safe use of PRN medications. The provider took steps to improve this during our assessment, but there was still room for improvement.