Hoylake Cottage

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety. Systems were in place to record and monitor accidents and incidents. Staff understood the process for reporting and recording events which occurred. Incidents and accidents were reviewed on a regular basis by the registered manager. This enabled them to analyse trends, identify any lessons learnt and work with people and staff to identify why the incident or accident had happened, and how to prevent similar incidents occurring.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. This included when people were admitted into and from hospital and moved into Hoylake Cottage from their own home or other care settings.

Family members felt confident people received consistent and safe care. A family member told us, “We needed a home that would offer kind care for [Name]. We settled on Hoylake Cottage. We really made the right decision.”

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. People told us they felt safe. One person commented, “I am fine, I am well looked after.”

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff received training and understood the actions they must take if they felt someone was being harmed or abused. Referrals had been made to the local authority safeguarding team when abuse had been suspected, and investigations had been completed. Information explaining how people could raise concerns if they felt someone was being abused was clearly displayed. We spoke with one family member who described to us a recent event but told us they were confident in the actions taken by the provider. They said, “It was a horrible event but was all sorted. I feel name is well looked after now.”

Some people were unable to consent to the care they received and were being deprived of their liberty through the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) framework. We reviewed the systems in place to ensure such restrictions were lawfully authorised and found all authorised restrictions had been appropriately assessed and were accurately reflected in peoples care plans.

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. Risk assessments had been completed, and personalised care plans had been developed to minimise any risk to people’s health and wellbeing.

Equipment was in place to keep people safe to mitigate the risk of falls, when people were at risk of developing pressure areas to their skin as well as to support them to mobilise safely. We observed safe moving and handling practices being undertaken by staff.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Routine checks on the environment and equipment were up to date, and certificates were in place to demonstrate this. The layout of the environment considered the needs of people living with dementia. For example, directional signage was available in accessible formats to assist people’s orientation around the building. Smaller rest areas were available for people to use when they didn’t want to use the larger communal areas and bedrooms had been decorated according to people’s wishes and preferences.

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.

Staff were safely recruited and inducted; appropriate checks had been made before applicants were offered employment. Staff were safely inducted and received the training they needed to provide safe care. New staff were given sufficient time to read peoples care plans before providing support. A family member told us, “New staff always introduce themselves to me and it is obvious they have already read up on [Name’s] history and needs.”

Staffing levels were safe, and there were enough staff on duty to provide the care people needed. There was some agency use due to ongoing recruitment but generally staff told us staffing levels were adequate. One staff member told us, “Staffing is currently low, but staff levels are normally wonderful, and the care home is recruiting.” A nurse who worked in Hoylake Cottage also told us, “I love that I have enough staff to support people fully with their condition.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was clean and well maintained. There was a scheme of refurbishment underway and replacement seating was on order. Family members told us, “It is always really clean and tidy” and “The place is spotlessly clean and it’s fantastic.”

There was enough personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout the service for staff to use when needed. Regular audits and checks were carried out to ensure high standards of cleanliness and working practices were maintained.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people, and their family members in planning, including when changes happened. People told us they were happy with the support they received. One person commented, “I have no concerns about my medicines, everything seems to be running smoothly.”

Medicines were stored securely and only administered by staff who were suitably trained. Records of administration were maintained and in line with best practice. This included systems to safely manage controlled drugs.

Guidance was in place for prescribed medicines administered on an ‘as required’ basis. This helped staff to understand why certain medicines were prescribed; and under what circumstances they should be offered to a person. Nurses told us staff were proactive in trying to minimise the use of medicines available for periods of distress. One nurse told us they, “Can’t praise staff enough” for their practice in this area and told us, “Staff are so good at working out what could be the problem and what we could do differently first.”

When people required their medicines to be administered ‘covertly’, decisions had been made appropriately in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and expert guidance had been obtained. Covert administration is when medicines are disguised in food or drink if a person refuses to take medicines but lacks the capacity to understand the impact of this on their health.