Yorkshire 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.
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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The management team had good insight into the need to be open and honest and investigate and act upon concerns shared. They investigated, recorded and provided outcomes when incidents took place, and also ensured any lessons learned were shared to avoid future incidents. The staff told us they felt well trained, and meetings and handovers were effective, allowing for good teamwork and for them to feel confident and able to do their jobs well. They felt management would listen and act upon concerns shared with them. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed regularly by the registered manager who analysed these for trends, patterns and commonalities. Complaints, incidents and safeguarding concerns were investigated with clear outcomes and lessons to be learnt identified. Actions were followed up by the management team. The service had robust procedures to ensure a positive learning culture.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The service had a consistent process for new referrals. They initially looked at referrals and considered people's needs and whether the service was able to meet needs. They also considered the people who already live at the service and compatibility.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately safeguarded any concerns; all concerns were also investigated and recorded appropriately in line with the provider's policy. Staff were able to describe how to identify and report potential abuse. The service used restrictive practise. There were detailed positive behaviour support plans in place which evidenced restrictions were legally justified, proportionate, necessary and used as a last resort. The internal positive behaviour team completed analysis of all incidents and restrictive practises, and these were reviewed regularly.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Staff understood the risks to people and told us they were kept up to date with changes in people’s needs. Staff were attentive and responsive to people’s needs. Risks to people’s care were well managed and we observed staff following safe practises. The service managed risks to people’s health, safety and welfare. Risk assessments were person centred and provided detailed information and were regularly reviewed with the person. The service ensured staff were identifying, monitoring and responding to risks to enable people to live their lives in the way they wanted. Following an incident when a person had potentially put themselves at risk when accessing the community independently, the service worked with professionals and the person to complete education and training around keeping themselves safe when accessing the community. The service provided support during an interim period to ensure safety but following the joint working with professionals and the person they continued to access the community independently.

People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people's personal care and support. The service detected and controlled potential risks in the environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People had individual spaces as well as communal areas for use. We found the supported living service had clear processes for the reporting of maintenance within the building. For example, the service had identified an issue with the recording of hot water temperatures. This had been clearly recorded logged and reported to the appropriate people for repair and monitored by the service.

The service 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 teams were allocated to work consistently in 1 of the 3 buildings, and this allowed staff to build positive relationships with people receiving care and support. The service had a robust induction process and new staff were supported to complete training and initially work with permanent staff who could share experience and knowledge.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff received training in controlling and preventing infection and there were gloves and aprons available. We observed staff using them where required. We reviewed the service's disposal of clinical waste policy and found no concerns during this assessment. The service had an up-to-date infection control policy.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People were given their medicines safely and in a timely manner. This was recorded on their medicines administration record (MAR) and medicines were stored safely and securely. There were processes in place to ensure the safe and effective use of medicines. Instructions for medicines which should be given at specific times were available. Detailed guidance specific to each person on how to administer medicines prescribed as and when people required, known as “PRN” was available to staff. Body maps were in place for topical creams and ointments, to show staff the site of application. There were records of people’s preferences to indicate how they wanted their medicines to be administered. Temperature records to ensure the safe storage of medicines were completed following national guidance. Records showed that management or staff carried out regular medicine audits. Staff had received medicines handling training, and their competencies were assessed regularly to make sure they had the necessary skills. There was a process in place to record any medicine related errors. The service was aware of and followed the principles and guidance of Stopping the over medication of people with a learning disability, autism or both (STOMP).