BYS Care & Training Services Ltd

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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 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 managers recorded incidents, took action toreduce the riskof recurrence andshared learning withstaff. Staff knew how to report incidents and felt comfortable raising concerns. Relatives were kept informed and were told about actions taken to reduce future risks. The provider learnt from incidents and feedback to improve the care provided.

People felt able to share their views with the manager, who listened and followedup their feedback. One person toldus, “You canget through noproblem and [they] listens. The manager visits meand asks howthings are going.” The registered manager demonstrated an understanding of learning from incidents and identifying recurring risks. They told us, “If you do not have a lesson learned, you are going to have things happening again and again.” They also describedthe importance oftrend analysis, “Youlook if it'sa trend, whyit happened, howit happened, howyou can avoidthis repeating again.”

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.

The provider had systems to protect people from abuse. Staff received safeguarding training, discussed concerns through meetings and supervision, and had access to a current safeguarding policy. Staff knew how to report concerns and who to contact. One staff member told us, “If I suspected someone was being abused, my first point of contact would be my manager. I would document my concerns and report them.”

The registered manager completed safeguarding checks, reviews and follow-up actions. One staff member required prompting to identify types of abuse but was able to identify physical, financial and emotional/psychological abuse and understood their reporting responsibilities. We shared this feedback with the registered manager, who welcomed the opportunity to strengthen staff knowledge and arranged refresher training and reflective sessions to explore safeguarding practice in greater depth and further develop staff competency.

Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe and were happy with the care provided.

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.

There were clear assessments covering the risks associated with people’s care needs, and health conditions. These were reviewed, updated regularly and gave staff clear guidance on how to support people safely.

People and their relatives felt risks were managed well. People were supported to remain independent where it was safe to do so and were involved in decisions about their care and any risks.

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. A member of staff told us, “I have completed safeguarding training as well as training in areas such as dementia care.”

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and care was provided at agreed times. People were generally supported by staff they knew and relatives said they trusted staff to provide safe care. One person told us, “I’m very safe, I like them and they like me. They come on time. I have the same carer.” However, a small number of people told us their carers had changed and they had not always experienced consistent care from familiar staff. We discussed this feedback with the registered manager, who explained that, although the service had a stable workforce, changes were sometimes necessary to ensure staff were appropriately matched to people’s needs and preferences.

Staff rotas were planned in advance, with regular allocations and arrangements for emergency cover. A staff member told us, “The rota is planned about a week in advance. We have regular allocations, but changes may be needed if carers are unavailable. We also have some carers who can provide emergency cover.”

The provider completed pre-employment checks to assess staff suitability. Staff received relevant training, had their competencies checked and were supported through supervision, meetings and appraisals.

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.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received support with their medicines when required. One person told us, “Staff watch me taking my medicines as sometimes I’m forgetful.” Staff maintained records of medicines, including the dose and when they should be administered.

Staff were trained to administer medicines safely and their competencies were checked regularly. Relatives said staff supported people to collect medicines and monitored when supplies were running low.