Poplars Care Home

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.

The last rating for this key question was 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.

The provider had systems to help staff learn when things went wrong. Staff reported and recorded all accidents, incidents and concerns. The provider investigated these and made improvements to help keep people safe. For example, they had changed flooring and installed warning signs because they identified risks which may have caused a person to fall. They had introduced handheld two-way communication devices for the staff to use in the event of emergencies.

The provider carried out an analysis of any trends or themes for all incidents and accidents. They used this information to identify staff training needs and update procedures. The provider liaised with other professionals, when needed, to make improvements.

Staff understood emergency procedures. They told us managers met with everyone to discuss incidents and share learning from these. Comments from staff included, “Managers always meet with us to discuss accidents and incidents” and “We receive pop-up messages highlighting any incidents which tell us the precautions we need to take.”

The provider had systems for safe pathways and transitions between services. The registered manager assessed people’s needs before they moved to the service to make sure they could meet these needs. Staff liaised with other professionals to highlight any changes in people’s needs and to help them access other services. People moved to the home for a 12-week trial stay, during which time managers reassessed their needs. The director told us they aimed to find ways to ensure people could remain with them by adapting the service. For example, sourcing additional staffing and making changes to the environment when needed.

Staff supported people to access healthcare services. They shared information with other professionals and supported people to attend a range of appointments. A staff member told us, “Our relationship with clinical staff in the community is excellent.”

People using the service and their relatives told us they had experienced good support when they moved to the home and when they accessed other services.

The provider had procedures to help safeguard people from harm and abuse. Staff undertook training in these. Staff were able to tell us how they would recognise and report abuse. The provider worked with other organisations and the local safeguarding teams to investigate allegations of abuse and protect people from further harm.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe. They told us they were confident speaking up about any concerns.

The provider carried out regular checks and audits of any restrictive practices. For example, the use of equipment which restricted people’s movement, medicines and any imposed rules. They reviewed these to make sure people were cared for in the least restrictive way, that they were able to make choices and that alternatives had been considered when possible.

The provider requested legal authorisations where restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for people who did not have the capacity to consent to these. Decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests and for their safety. Managers monitored these authorisations and any conditions to providing care to make sure these were relevant and right for each person. They liaised with external professionals to make sure any changes in people’s needs or mental capacity were identified and they were given the right support.

The provider assessed risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. These included risks relating to their physical and mental health. Managers created detailed plans for staff to help reduce risks. People using the service and their relatives were involved in these assessments and planning. People were supported to be independent and take risks when safe to do so. For example, accessing the local community independently and self-care tasks.

Some people had anxiety and/or expressed themselves in a way which could challenge the service. Staff worked closely with other professionals to help develop support plans about these needs. The plans guided staff to identify triggers, to provide proactive support and to help people feel calm and safe. A staff member explained, “It is all about listening to people, supporting them to be aware of potential risks and to make safe choices.”

People told us risks were well managed. They explained staff provided safe care.

Not all risks within the environment had been assessed or mitigated. We identified risks within the laundry room. We discussed this with the provider. They took immediate action and sent us evidence of the improvements.

At the time of our assessment, the lift was not operating. The provider had arranged for repairs but there was a delay because the engineers were waiting for parts. Four people who used the service were not able to move between floors without the lift. Some people told us they felt isolated because of this. The provider had tried to minimise the impact by creating a communal area and additional staff support on different floors.

Notwithstanding the above, the environment was well maintained. Staff completed checks of safety and repairs were quickly addressed. There was good signage to help orientate people. People had personalised their bedrooms and made choices about the décor and layout of communal areas. The provider had added features people requested to improve the environment. For example, speakers in the bath and shower rooms which people could connect to their mobile phones to listen to music whilst using these.

The provider had fire safety systems which included evacuation procedures and checks of equipment. Staff took part in regular fire safety training and drills.

People told us they liked the environment and felt this was safe and homely.

The provider employed enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. People told us they did not have to wait for care. People had good relationships with staff and knew them well. Comments from people included, “I use my call bell and the staff come quickly” and “There is a low turnover of staff. We have a good relationship.”

The provider had recently reassessed staffing levels and arranged for an additional staff member to work each day to meet an identified need. Staff told us this had led to improvements in care delivery.

The provider had systems to ensure safe staff recruitment. They carried out a range of checks on staff suitability. New staff completed inductions and a training to help them understand about people’s needs and safe care. Managers assessed their skills and competencies. Staff completed regular training updates and had meetings with managers to discuss their work. Comments from staff included, “Staffing levels are fine, and I have completed training, both online and face to face” and “We have enough staff, and the additional staff member has helped us.”

The provider had systems to help prevent and control infection. Staff undertook training to understand these. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons. There were schedules to ensure the environment was kept clean. Managers carried out regular audits of cleanliness and to ensure procedures to prevent and control the spread of infection were followed.

People told us the home was clean, and they were happy with the laundry service. Their comments included, “I am happy with the cleanliness. The staff wear gloves and masks” and “It is always clean and smells fresh.”

The provider had systems to ensure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Medicines were safely stored, administered and recorded. Staff responsible for medicines undertook relevant training. Managers assessed their knowledge, skills and competencies.

Staff worked with other healthcare professionals to review people’s medicines and make sure these were right for them.

Some people managed their own medicines. Staff assessed the risks relating to this and supported people to remain as independent as possible.

Managers carried out audits to make sure medicines were managed safely.

People told us they were happy with the support they received with medicines. A person told us, “The medication is always on time and done well.”