Wakefield Supported Living

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. We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the safe key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection. This key question has been rated 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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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 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 received safeguarding training. The staff we spoke with understood their role in keeping people safe and their duty to inform the manager if they had any concerns about people’s safety. The provider had an up-to-date safeguarding policy in place which the management team and staff understood. Where concerns were raised, the provider cooperated in subsequent investigations and shared the learning within the staff team and the wider organisation.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care settings this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they supported people who were deprived of their liberty within the service. We found some gaps in staff understanding of deprivation of liberty. For example, one assessment gave inconsistent answers about supervision, freedom to leave and deprivation of liberty, showing confusion about the meaning of these terms. There was also misunderstanding about the purpose of a Court authorisation for a deprivation of liberty, which provides a legal framework for depriving someone of their liberty, as opposed to authorising specific restrictions such as lap belts or bedrails.The registered manager had identified gaps in staff knowledge and had taken action to address this through further guidance and training. Court applications to authorise deprivation of liberty had been made and followed up appropriately for everyone.

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.

People were kept safe because staff assessed risks and took action to reduce them. Care records included risk assessments covering a range of areas.

Where risks associated with people’s care were identified, such as with swallowing, mobility or behaviour, we saw staff supporting them safely and in line with their risk assessments. Staff used specialist equipment where this was needed. Risk assessments contained enough detail to guide staff on how to manage risks and when to escalate concerns. When required, staff made referrals to healthcare professionals for specialist assessments and guidance.

People were involved in their risk assessments, and the least restrictive options were used to keep them safe.

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

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.

The service ensured there were enough staff to ensure people were supported on a 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 basis to access the community and appointments or when people required support with their moving and handling needs.

People were supported by suitable staff who has been recruited safely. The provider used robust methods when recruiting staff. These included interviews, taking up references, checks of potential criminal records and the confirmation of identities. New staff received induction and on-going training.

Team meetings, 1 to 1 meetings and daily handovers were in place, to support staff to provide safe care to people.

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.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.