St Anne's Community Services - York DCA

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

People told us they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and knew what to do if they had any concerns. Processes were in place to ensure people were involved in the management of their own support. Support plans were person-centred and were developed with the involvement of people and their relatives where appropriate. Staff were safely recruited. They received an appropriate induction and training. Work was underway to recruit more staff in order to improve the consistency of staffing. There were safe systems in place to manage medicines and healthcare related infection risks.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were supported safely. Improvements had been made to the safety of the service and the management of risks. However, further work was still needed demonstrate a good learning culture at the service and to maximise opportunities to share best practice, promote independence and learn from people’s feedback.

Staff told us there had been recent improvements at the service and felt they had opportunity to share learning. The new management team told us about systems they had put in place to record and respond to safety incidents. They were also able to describe the organisational process for sharing lessons learned. However, there were limited examples of shared learning at this service as yet, and more time was needed to embed a robust learning culture.

Processes and systems were in place to support a learning culture, but further sustained focus was needed in this area, to demonstrate the impact of these systems and maximise opportunities to learn from incidents. Staff meetings sometimes took place where learning could be shared but these had not always taken place consistently. Additional audits and checks had been introduced and there was a continuous improvement plan in place.

People were supported to access other healthcare professionals and services where needed, including doctor’s appointments and review meetings.

Staff and leaders were knowledgeable about the other services people accessed. Staff confirmed there were good communication systems in place so they knew when people needed support to attend an appointment.

Feedback from partners working with the service was generally positive, and one social care professional told us the interim manager had been, “swift to highlight anything to myself that may require attention.”

Emergency admission plans were in place to support people to safely transition to other services. Advice from health professionals was incorporated into people’s support plans.

People told us they were kept safe and were happy with the support provided. One relative told us, “I feel safe as [person] feels safe. I don’t have to worry.” No safeguarding concerns were raised by people or relatives.

Staff understood safeguarding and knew what to do if they had any concerns. One staff member told us, “My understanding of safeguarding is protecting [people’s] health, wellbeing and enabling them to live free from harm and neglect. If I was worried about someone, I would let management know.” Staff told us they did not have any current safeguarding concerns.

Processes were in place to deal with safeguarding concerns appropriately. There was a safeguarding policy, and staff knew how to access this.

People currently using the service were largely independent with their care needs and required minimal support with personal care. People were involved in the planning of the support provided and the management of any risks. People told us communication was good and they would have no concerns speaking up if there was something they weren’t happy with. The new manager had made contact with people to discuss their needs.

Staff confirmed that they spoke with people alongside reading their care plans to learn about their individual needs and wishes. Staff confirmed people were regularly involved in discussions about their care. One staff member told us, “I listen to what [people] feel is important in their life.”

Processes were in place to ensure people were involved in the management of their own support and any related risks. Support plans were person-centred and included involvement with people and their relatives where appropriate. The interim manager had promoted improvements in the consistency and recording of incidents, in order to ensure any required action was taken to reduce risk.

People were supported in their own homes. Where appropriate, staff offered suggestions and support in relation to any potential environmental safety issues.

Staff were aware of potential environmental risks and knew how to escalate any concerns they may have about people’s living environment or equipment.

The provider assessed environmental risks relating to each person’s property. Guidance was available to staff in people’s support plans about how to manage any identified risks and maintain a safe environment. This included consideration of factors like pets, security and equipment.

People and relatives told us there were usually enough staff. One relative commented, “They could do with some more staff but they are trying.” They felt staff were competent and told us, “They know what to do and how to support [person].” There had been some recent staff changes and increased agency staff use, which had impacted on the consistency of people’s regular care team. Care visits were always covered on the rota, but there had been occasions where people had chosen to cancel their care visit because their preferred staff were not available.

Staff were happy with the amount of training and support provided. We received mixed feedback about staffing levels. Some staff told us more staff were needed and felt staffing vacancies had impacted on consistency. Other staff said there were enough staff and they did not have to rush their tasks. The management team told us they were working to fill some current staff vacancies, and a small number of regular agency staff were being used in the meantime.

Processes were in place to recruit sufficient staff to safely support people. The provider followed polices in relation to safe recruitment, induction and training. There had been good progress over recent months to improve compliance in relation to training, and further courses were booked to continue developing staff knowledge. Staff received supervision, and annual appraisals were in the process of being booked at the time of our assessment.

People were supported by staff who understood how to reduce the risk of healthcare related infections.

Staff confirmed they had completed infection prevention and control (IPC) training and had access to sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment.

The provider had an IPC policy and training was available. A staff meeting was booked to refresh staff knowledge in this area and complete competence checks, as these were not up to date. There was an outstanding action on the service’s continual improvement plan to complete an IPC audit.

No-one receiving a regulated activity from the service required support with medicines at the time of our assessment.

Staff confirmed they received medication training and told us they would feel confident in how to support people safely with medicines, should this be needed. They were knowledgeable about how to escalate any concerns they may have about changes in people’s ability to manage their own medicines.

Staff had received medication training and competency assessments. The provider had a medicine policy which was in line with national guidance.