Magnolia House

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 72 (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. 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. Staff had received training on safeguarding adult’s and were aware of their responsibilities to report and share any concerns about people’s safety. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. The provider reflected on any concerns raised and implemented learning to improve practices. Relative’s felt their family member was kept safe and well cared for.

Deprivation of liberty safeguards were in place to protect people who were not able to live safely without continuous supervision and to ensure their safety when out in the community.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. However, we identified that window restrictors had been overridden and were not protecting people from the risk of falling from height. We bought this to the registered manager’s attention, and they took immediate action to ensure the window restrictors were used appropriately.

The provider assessed risks to people’s safety and developed clear management plans that instructed staff how to reduce the risk to people. This included risks at the service and in the community. Individual risk assessments were in place which took account of people’s health, this included in relation to epilepsy and seizure activity, and dysphagia.

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 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.

No new staff had been recruited since our last assessment; therefore we did not review recruitment practices at this assessment.

There were sufficient staff in post to support people’s needs. Staffing levels were flexible and could be adjusted according to the needs of the people using the service and the number of people using the service. New practices had been implemented to improve lone working to ensure the safety of people and staff.

Staff received regular mandatory training as well as additional training according to the specific needs of people using the service, this included training on dementia, epilepsy and dysphagia. The provider adhered to the mandatory requirement to ensure all staff had completed training on supporting people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Staff received regular supervision. We saw these sessions gave staff the opportunity to discuss their role and any support needs they had, as well as using the session as a competency-based training discussion.

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.

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