Yourlife (Swindon)

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 assessed 8 quality statements in the safe domain, relating to learning culture, safe systems, pathways and transitions, safeguarding, involving people to manage risks, safe environments, safe and effective staffing, infection prevention and control (IPC) and medicines optimisation. There were systems and processes in place to demonstrate the service was safe. Staff were able to tell us how to keep people safe from harm and abuse and risks for people were managed effectively. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of medication and IPC processes. Leaders acted on medicines errors appropriately. Incidents and accidents were acted upon to safeguard people and staff. Lessons were learnt and shared with relevant parties. Staff had received relevant training in relation to their roles. However, some staff told us they would prefer face-to-face training rather than online.

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.

People told us staff responded quickly to incidents and the service completed regular reviews of their care needs with them. They told us they were listened to and had the opportunity to provide feedback to staff and leaders about their care.

Staff told us they would report any incidents to leaders and felt these would be investigated. Leaders completed incident analysis and reflective practices with staff to strengthen their approach to learning.

There was an accident, falls and incident action log in place which identified immediate actions and long-term actions to be completed. For example, there was evidence of actions being followed up by the provider for a person who fell when getting out of a chair and hurting themself.

People told us they had received good support to set up their care packages. One person told us they had recently transferred to this service from another care provider and felt communication was effective during this process, which helped ensure their needs were met.

Staff told us they had time to read through people’s care plans and risk assessments before supporting them. They also had a verbal conversation with leaders to go through the care plan thoroughly at the beginning of support, so they understood people’s needs.

One partner agency confirmed the service had completed an assessment of a person’s needs when they had transferred the care package for an individual to the service. They also confirmed staff at the service had requested an opportunity to observe specific manual handling techniques for a person prior to support commencing to ensure they were completing the task appropriately.

Processes were in place to ensure information was gathered from relatives and partners prior to commencing care packages and initial assessments were completed with people before they started using the service. People's health conditions were documented clearly, and processes were in place to ensure people were supported to access a range of health care professionals as required.

People told us they felt safe. One person told us “I feel safe, I don’t feel like I’m doing everything on my own.” Another person told us “They make me feel comfortable and safe and I’ve never felt unsafe in their company or their practices.”

Staff were clear about how to identify abuse and knew the processes to follow when reporting abuse. Staff were aware of the whistleblowing policy and process.

There was a safeguarding policy and procedure in place and all staff were aware of this. However, during our assessment, we identified 1 person had a bruise on their hand, and the person was not sure how they had sustained it. On raising this with leaders, they confirmed the staff member had identified the bruise on the morning of our onsite visit but had not yet reported it to management. The manager spoke with the staff member and implemented their safeguarding process.

People had been involved in setting their care plans and risk assessments and had a file available in their homes with all relevant information available.

Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of how to support people in a way that ensured risks were well-managed, whilst respecting people’s choices and independence. There were daily handover sheets available for staff to read in order to stay up to date with information relating to people’s needs. Staff told us they would benefit from having a verbal handover rather than a written handover about people’s needs. Leaders told us they were considering the best way to handover information to staff.

Care plans contained the required detail to keep people safe and manage risks. Regular reviews of care plans were being completed with people. There were specific care plans available based on people’s individual needs. Audits of care plans were being completed by the provider to identify any improvements needed.

People told us they had access to the equipment needed to stay safe. They felt staff had the knowledge and training to support them with equipment. One person told us “Staff make me feel safe by standing by the side of the bed when I am being moved to make sure I don’t fall.”

Staff told us they felt safe accessing people’s properties and had access to all the information needed to keep themselves and people safe. Management was onsite to help them deal with any concerns.

Staff had received training in manual handling. There was evidence of staff liaising with professionals to ensure people had access to the equipment they needed. Equipment being used by people was documented in care plans with guidance for staff on how it should be used. There was a business continuity plan in place which highlighted what to do in an emergency.

People were complimentary about the staff and their skills and ability to perform in their roles.

Staff told us they had completed a wide range of training courses. Staff also told us they had enough time to meet people’s needs, although sometimes it could be busy due to people’s need changing. They told us management supported them if they needed extra time to help people. Leaders covered staff absences by utilising staff from other local services managed by the provider.

Required pre-employment checks had been completed for staff before they started work. This included a check with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). Staff had the appropriate checks for the right to work in the UK. Staff had received a contract of employment, had clear job descriptions and completed an induction. There was evidence of staff training appropriate to the role and this was monitored to ensure compliance with training requirements.

People told us staff followed good infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. Comments included “[Manager] watches them and tells them what to do,” and “I have no concerns about infection control.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of IPC processes and told us they had received training. Staff told us there was always personal protective equipment (PPE) available on site.

The provider had an IPC policy and procedure in place. Staff had received training in IPC and regular spot checks were being completed by the provider.

People who received support from the service in relation to medicine administration told us they were given as prescribed.

Staff told us they needed to complete medicines training and were assessed on their competency before administering any medicines. Leaders told us when medicine errors occur staff need to re-visit the relevant training and are required to be signed off as competent before being able to administer medicines again.

Daily medicines checks were being completed by the on-duty manager. Regular medicines audits were being completed and where medicines errors had occurred, management acted on these concerns. Staff had received training in safe administration of medicines and were assessed as competent before supporting people. There was a medicines policy in place.