66 Hookstone Chase Harrogate

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.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to staffing. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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. There was a positive learning culture, supported by audits and action plans. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Accidents and incidents were recorded, reviewed and used for learning, which was also shared with staff.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Staff worked collaboratively with professionals and families to provide joined-up care.

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 were trained in safeguarding, understood their responsibilities and were confident in safeguarding procedures. A staff member said, “I am 100% confident managers would deal with anything. [Manager] is for the clients.” People told us they felt safe living at the home. A relative said, “Oh yes [person] is absolutely being kept safe.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, 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 managed DoLS within the service. We found that appropriate DoLS applications had been submitted where required, and authorisations were in place. Records showed that conditions attached to authorisations were being met, and staff monitored these effectively. This meant the service was acting lawfully and protecting people’s rights while ensuring their care needs were met.

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. Risk assessments were detailed, person‑centred, current, and regularly reviewed. People were involved in decisions about positive risk-taking, and staff understood individual preferences and communication needs.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Regular health and safety checks of equipment and the environment were completed.

The environment was clean, well maintained, and adapted to people’s needs. The home had been updated and redecorated since our last inspection, including improved accessibility features to bathrooms. A relative said, “Since ‘Homes Together’ took over, the improvements have been huge… The bedrooms are lovely.”

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. All required pre-employment recruitment checks were completed. Training, supervision and appraisals records were in place; staff were positive about the training and told us they felt valued and well supported.

Staffing levels and rotas reflected peoples individual support needs, and there was flexibility in staff deployment when people wished to try different things. Everyone spoken with told us staffing had improved since the last inspection. A relative said, "There's always enough [Staff].”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Infection control and prevention measures were robust, supported by staff ‘champions’ who received enhanced training.

Strong systems were in place for safe and effective medicines management. 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 their medicines safely. Covert medication was authorised and documented in line with MCA and best-interest principles. GP medication reviews were completed at least annually, and the provider committed to the principles of STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or both).