Berkeley Court

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. 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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

There was a safeguarding policy in place which had been followed and staff received training. Staff were knowledgeable about the types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to. One staff said, “We need to make sure every resident is safe. Ensure privacy of the residents. If I have any concerns, I will speak to the team leader, deputy or the manager.” People told us they felt safe, and comments included, “Yes, I do feel safe” and “Yes, it is safe 100%, [My relative] is really happy. [My relative] had a couple of falls, and [staff] check on [them]. Staff remind [them] to use [their] walker.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected their rights when delivering care and treatment. If people lacked capacity to make specific decisions capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed.

The provider did not always manage risks. For example, one person had been sat in a chair with their sling on for a long period of time which could have impacted the person’s skin integrity. We discussed this with the registered manager who took immediate action to address this issue. We also found some risk assessments were not accurate. For example, one person’s risk assessment guided staff to reposition the person every 2 hours due to a pressure sore. However, this information was not accurate as the person’s sore had healed and they were now on 4 hourly repositions. We found no evidence that anyone was harmed, and the provider had updated all risk assessments by the second day of our inspection.

During our inspection we found staff supported people safely and appropriate equipment was available if people needed assistance. When people were at risk of falls the home took appropriate action to mitigate future risks.

Staff mainly provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People and their relatives told us their risks were managed well and staff supported them quickly when needed. People and relatives’ comments included, “There have been times when [Name] has needed more pain relief, and they get the nurses out quickly to do this” and “The staff are alright. They come quickly if it’s important.”

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 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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

There was a safeguarding policy in place which had been followed and staff received training. Staff were knowledgeable about the types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to. One staff said, “We need to make sure every resident is safe. Ensure privacy of the residents. If I have any concerns, I will speak to the team leader, deputy or the manager.” People told us they felt safe, and comments included, “Yes, I do feel safe” and “Yes, it is safe 100%, [My relative] is really happy. [My relative] had a couple of falls, and [staff] check on [them]. Staff remind [them] to use [their] walker.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected their rights when delivering care and treatment. If people lacked capacity to make specific decisions capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed.

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.