Your Life (Cheltenham)

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 78 (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 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 always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

There was a real focus on reducing risks and keeping people safe. People had been given a personal pendant, which they could use in an emergency to alert staff. On hearing the alarm, the staff would go and check on the person and offer support. This gave people in their own homes an additional level of security that they could get help when needed.

The provider operated a safe system known as ‘I’m OK’ system. This required people to press the ‘I’m Ok’ button in their homes daily by 11am, which sent a notification to the office. If staff had not received this communication by this time a further check would be made to people’s homes to ensure they were ok and not in need of support. This meant that daily contact was maintained with people even if they were not receiving a support visit to maintain safety and wellbeing. The registered manager told us that this had a significant impact on identifying any concerns in a timely manner. They provided an example where staff had checked one person who had not pressed the button and found they were unwell in bed. This had enabled staff to then contact medical support and support this person before they deteriorated further.

The registered managers also took a proactive approach to wider risks including financial fraud and fire risks. People had been given the opportunity to attend safety talks from a fire safety officer who spoke to people on fire safety in their own homes. This increased people’s awareness and knowledge to help identify any risks to improve their safety. The registered manager told us that they had all learnt things from this visit, and it had enabled people to make some small changes including the substance they used in cooking which would reduce risks.

Another safety visit was planned from a member of a bank to talk to people and staff about fraud and scams to equip them with the skills to identify potential fraudsters and be mindful of the associated risks around financial matters. These talks helped people to keep safe in their communities and creating positive conversation around common risks to be aware of.

We saw that people had individual risk assessments in place which highlighted any extra support they required to keep safe and mitigate any concerns. For people that were at risk of falls, we saw the assessment considered areas including, wearing appropriate footwear, the medicines prescribed and any impacts, people’s vision and any medical conditions. This was then scored and depending on this score a falls prevention action plan would be triggered. Staff we spoke with were confident in raising concerns around risks to keep people safe. One staff said, “A fall may entail a review from the doctor. We have a device where we report on the system electronically we used to have a log. This system started last month. I feel safe to raise things.”

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and well supported around any risks they had; commenting, “The girls all do well without exception. And we feel safe with them. They understand her risks e.g. she does fall often and they are aware of that”, “Yes she is 100% safe with them all, they [staff] are top drawer. If anything went wrong I know they would take action quickly” and “Yes she is safe and the carers are well trained. The manager is excellent and I definitely feel action would be taken in the event of an issue. [Relative] has [health condition] and they understand and manage the risks associated with this.”

One relative told us staff were trained well to identify and manage risks; stating, “There is no special equipment they have to use, but they are well aware of her risks and have spotted that she was not using her walking frame properly and have advised her of the correct way to use it.”

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.

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.