Whitby Health Partnership

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

We looked for evidence that staff protected people from avoidable harm and made sure care was delivered from environments that were clean and well maintained. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

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

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service ensured that equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care but did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment effectively.

The service had contracts in place to maintain the premises. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits; however, these were not always effective in ensuring that all risks were consistently identified and addressed. For example, risk assessments were not always readily available and did not consistently identify all hazards or the control measures required to mitigate them. In addition, COSHH assessments were not in place for all materials used by the service. The service had a process in place to manage and store prescription pads; however, this was not always effective. For example, while a system was in place to record who held prescription pads, serial numbers were not routinely tracked or stored separately.

Following our assessment, the provider took immediate action and provided evidence demonstrating that these concerns had been resolved or that appropriate plans were in place to address them.

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.

The service employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, nurses and pharmacists. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence.

The service did not always follow safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, in line with national legislation. Of the recruitment files sampled, we found some areas where records were not fully complete, including retaining evidence of qualifications and references.

We discussed this with the provider who wasreceptive to our feedback and provided assurance that the issue would be addressed.

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.

The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment. The service demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. During our on-site visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed were visibly clean. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

The service’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate identified risks. However, records were not always maintained to demonstrate that all monitoring activities had been completed. For example, hand hygiene spot checks were undertaken but were not always documented. Following our assessment, the provider has submitted evidence demonstrating that action had been taken to resolve this issue.

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