Stella Matutina 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.

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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff could tell us what action they would take following an incident or accident. For example, ringing the emergency alarm, dealing with medical emergencies, updating records and speaking to families. We saw evidence of actions taken on behalf of someone who had suffered repeat falls.

People and relatives confirmed people were safe living at the home, and incidents they had been involved in had been managed appropriately. A person living at the home said, “I do feel safe and well looked after. I have a chord to pull if I get into difficulty. Staff go around every night to check we are alright.”

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.

Managers met with people at their family home or in hospital prior to them moving into Stella Matutina. A detailed pre-assessment form was completed, and information shared in daily handover meetings, so staff were aware of people’s needs before they moved in. A relative spoke positively about considerations staff made when a husband and wife moved into the home, to help them settle in and reduce any anxieties.

Information about the home and services provided, and advice about moving into care was available on the provider’s website, to help prepare people for their move into the home.

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.

Staff completed training in safeguarding and there was a robust safeguarding policy in place. Safeguarding information including the contact details of the local authority was clearly displayed on a communal noticeboard for ease of access.

The home ensured people were only deprived of their liberty with the correct legal authorities to do so. The service worked closely with the local authority to ensure Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were completed for those who needed them. If people were subject to DoLS, information was included in their care plans.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Managers ensured people’s care plans included detailed information about risks to people and associated best practice guidance was included to help inform staff. For example, the signs and symptoms of different clinical risks and how deterioration should be escalated.

Staff received training in several topics to support their understanding of risk. For example, falls prevention, dysphagia, diabetes, epilepsy and pressure care.

Some people now living at the home, had more complex needs, including behaviours that communicated a need, emotion or distress. Whilst detailed, person-centred information was included in care plans, behaviours were not recorded adequately to enable a review of themes, or the effectiveness of strategies used.

Following feedback, managers immediately provided additional guidance and support to staff in relation to antecedent, behaviour, consequence (ABC) recording of behaviours; and additional dementia training was organised.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Observations at the home identified several health and safety concerns, which could be a potential risk for people living with more advanced dementia. For example, access to staircases, kitchenettes and sluice rooms was not always adequately secured, and cleaning fluids, personal care sprays and toiletries were not stored safely.

Some staff fed back the size of the bedrooms could be an issue when trying to manoeuvre larger mobility equipment such as hoists.

A maintenance person was available to risk assess the premises and conduct regular health and safety checks. They carried out emergency and routine maintenance at the home and were responsive when we identified an issue with a window restrictor, fitting a replacement the same day. External servicing to the environment and equipment was carried out at appropriate intervals.

Fire safety measures such as extinguishers, fire doors and emergency lighting were in place and checked monthly. Staff received training in fire safety and had been shown how to use evacuation equipment; regular fire drills took place.

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.

The provider had safe recruitment procedures in place, and the appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure new staff were of good character.

New staff received an induction and package of training which was refreshed in line with best practice guidance. A person living at the home told us, “[Staff] are very well trained.” Staff were encouraged to complete self-assessments on how confident they felt in different areas of care, with additional training and support being offered to those who needed it.

The provider had a tool in place which was used to calculate staffing levels, and managers assured us staffing was planned in line with the tool and reviewed regularly. However, we did receive mixed feedback about staffing levels. Whilst this did not impact the standard of people’s care, staff told us they sometimes felt very busy.

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.

Housekeeping staff were available daily to support the team, and the home was found to be clean and tidy, with no evidence of malodour during our visits. Kitchen staff ensured kitchens were clean and well organised with the appropriate food hygiene checks in place. The laundry room was laid out with a good clean to dirty flow.

Managers carried out checks to the cleanliness of the service and infection prevention and control (IPC) on daily walk arounds. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available throughout the home, so it was easy for staff to access.

People received support to maintain their personal hygiene. One person told us, “The personal care is great.” Another added, “There is no problem with cleanliness and hygiene, I have a shower regularly.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were managed safely, including controlled drugs and ‘as required’ medication; with robust systems for safe ordering, storing, administration and disposal. Senior staff carried out regular checks on medicines, with managers and senior managers conducting monthly audits, ensuring a good level of oversight.

Details of people’s medication needs and administration preferences were included in care plans, and medication administration records (MARs) were found to include the appropriate information and be fully completed.

Training and competency checks were in place for all staff who administered medication, including seniors and night staff. A staff member said, “Usually seniors are available during the day, night staff are all trained to give early morning medicines. We get training on-line; new staff also get in-person training. Competencies are done every 6 months, usually by the deputy manager.”