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

People and staff had positive feedback about safety. The provider ensured there were enough, safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs. People were involved in assessing risks to help keep them safe. Medicines were administered safely.

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.

People and relatives felt the Coquet Trust provided safe support. A person commented, “They [staff] are good, they treat me nice. I feel safe with the staff.”

Staff confirmed they felt people received safe support from the Coquet Trust. A staff member commented, “People using the service are very safe.” Staff knew how to raise concerns and said they felt confident to do so, if required. A staff member said, “I would feel very confident whistle blowing and we have also been encouraged to whenever we sense something wrong. However, I have never had any reason or concern to whistle blow.”

The provider had good systems for dealing with safeguarding concerns, when needed. Previous concerns had been referred to the local authority safeguarding team as expected. Staff had completed safeguarding training to help develop their knowledge around identifying potential abuse and how to report this. Safeguarding concerns were analysed to identify lessons learnt and the findings were reported to the Board of Trustees.

Staff supported people to receive safe care that was suitable for them. A relative said, “[Family member] is safe. They get the right amount of support for them.”

Staff worked as a team to ensure people received safe care that met their needs. A staff member confirmed, “So not only are we working as a team, we ensure they [people] are at the centre of all we do while on session.”

Where potential risks had been identified, positive risk-taking assessments were carried out. These incorporated people’s views and identified specific strategies to help keep people safe. Some people had positive behaviour support (PBS) plans. These provided personalised information to staff about the most effective strategies to prevent people from becoming distress and how to support them 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.

People and relatives told us staff were usually consistent and reliable. A person said, “They are usually the same people but sometimes they change. This doesn't happen very often. It is usually ok.” A relative commented, "Generally the same staff, unless there are holidays."

Staff confirmed there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. One staff member commented, “The staffing level now is adequate to meet peoples need. Rotas have recently been published 3 to 4 weeks ahead of time which has been a positive.”

New staff were recruited safely. The provider completed a range of checks to help ensure new staff were suitable, 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.

People received their medicines when they were due. One person confirmed staff supported them with taking medicines and they got them when needed.

Staff did not have any concerns about medicines management. They confirmed they were able to give people the medicines they needed.

The provider had effective systems to ensure people received their medicines when they were due. Electronic medicines administration records were maintained to confirm which medicines people had been given. Staff had their competency assessed prior to administering medicines to ensure they had the correct skills and knowledge. Staff also had personalised guidance about when to give people ‘when required’ medicines. The provider had audit systems to check people received the correct medicines. These had been effective in identifying areas for improvement.