Coquet Trust

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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. People told us they felt safe and supported. A person commented, “It is very safe. I have no concerns at all. It is one of the best moves I made coming here.”

Staff felt people were safe receiving support from the Coquet Trust. A staff member said, “The house is definitely safe.” Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident to do so, if needed. A staff member said, “I report concerns to the manager, I would definitely speak up and I feel listened to.”

There were good relationships between staff and people. People were comfortable around the staff and sought out staff for help. Staff responded positively and supported people well when needed.

The provider had effective systems for dealing with safeguarding concerns, when required. Previous allegations had been referred to the local authority safeguarding team and investigated to keep people safe. Staff had completed safeguarding training and had developed a good understanding of identifying and reporting concerns. Safeguarding concerns were regularly analysed to identify patterns and lessons learnt. These were reported to senior management and the Board of Trustees.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. The provider promoted positive risk taking, some people accessed the local community and services independently. A person said, “I go out on the bus without support.”

There was good teamwork to help ensure people received safe care that reflected their needs and wishes. A staff member described how care plans and risk assessments were in place and had been shared with external agencies for input.

Staff responded positively and supported people well when needed. They provided prompts and guidance when required to help keep people safe.

Positive risk-taking assessments were carried out to help manage potential risks to people’s safety. These included specific measures to reduce risks and promote safety. People’s views were considered as part of this. Some people had positive behaviour support (PBS) plans which included details of personalised strategies to both prevent people from becoming distressed, and support them sensitively at these times.

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 service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. People confirmed staff were always around to help them when needed.

Staff told us staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. One staff member commented, “There are enough staff to support, no bank or agency staff are used. Teamwork is really good.”

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs in a timely way.

Staff rotas showed houses were staffed as expected to meet people’s needs. The provider recruited new staff safely. They completed a range of checks during the recruitment process, including a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.

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. People received their medicines when they were due.

Staff did not have any concerns about medicines management.

We did not observe people receiving medicines when we visited their home.

The provider had effective systems to ensure people received their medicines on time. Electronic medicines administration records identified which medicines people had been given. Staff were trained and had their competency assessed prior to administering medicines. This helped ensure they had the correct skills and knowledge to administer medicines safely. Staff had completed additional training to support some people with specific medicines requirements. Staff also had personalised guidance about when to give people ‘when required’ medicines. Management carried out regular audits to check people received the correct medicines. These had been effective in identifying areas for improvement.