White Pearl 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learned to continually identify and embed good practice.

People and their relatives suggested there was an open dialogue of communication with the registered manager and staff, and staff knew how to report concerns.

We were able to review examples of lessons learned and some lessons learned were shared in staff meetings, and after safeguarding investigations. However, further work could be done to strengthen improvement by making this topic a set agenda in staff meetings. The registered manager told us how they would look to implement this.

Accidents and incidents were being recorded, and appropriate action was being taken.

The service 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.

People felt the staff team worked well together to ensure they received the care and support they needed. One relative told us, "If [person] has ever been to hospital, they have taken [person] and they waited with [person]. They are good with that, so I think they would support safe transitions." Staff spoke about information being shared at handover and by management. Handover sheets were in place to support sharing of information with staff coming onto shift. We observed a handover which was detailed and covered all necessary areas.

We were able to see some examples where appropriate referrals had been made when people needed external support. We requested partner feedback in this area but received no responses.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding. One staff member said they would report, "Things like physical abuse, financial abuse and neglect." Staff had completed safeguarding training, and the service had a safeguarding policy in place which detailed necessary information.

Staff were able to confidently explain about the Mental Capacity Act. One staff member said, "It is about ensuring any decision made about the care a person receives is in line with the (Mental) Capacity Act. It’s about assuming people have capacity until we know otherwise." A Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Policy and procedure was in place. Restraint was not being used within the service.

We saw examples of mental capacity assessments that had been completed. The registered manager confirmed people could access advocates if they needed this support, and this type of support had been accessed in the past. An electronic signing in system was in place to ensure the service had an accurate record of any visitors which helped keep people safe. Appropriate safeguarding’s were being made based on the accident and incident log we reviewed.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe at White Pearl House. One person said, "Oh yes (my relatively is) definitely (safe at White Pearl House)."

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

People and their relative’s felt risks were being managed. One relative told us, "I think they do their best to manage [persons] risks, yes." Staff spoke about how they managed various risks. Necessary risks assessments were in place when needed, relating to people’s health and potential risks.

We were able to see examples of some environmental risk assessments that were in place. We found appropriate personal emergency evacuation records were in place.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People and their relatives felt they and their loved one was in a safe environment. One staff member said of the environment, "It is very clean and well kept, very well maintained." The environment was safe. The home benefitted from underfloor heating, which removed risks around radiators being hot to the touch. Windows had necessary restrictors in place and there was adequate signage around the service. The environment was neutral and well maintained.

Necessary safety certificates were in place to support safe environments in areas including gas safety, electricity and legionella checks. Fire safety checks were in place for the most part, however, the fire safety risk assessment was out of date. The registered manager booked in the necessary risk assessment as soon as the issue was identified.

Recruitment practices were not always safe, though the service 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.

Recruitment practices needed some improvement; some pre-employment checks were not fully completed and some gaps in employment had not been addressed. The registered manager spoke about how they had made some checks pre-employment, but these did not follow standard process. The registered manager told us how they would drive improvement in this area.

People’s feedback on staffing levels was positive. One-persons relative told us, "Yes (there is enough staff), definitely, I went to see [person] at Christmas and there were 4 members of staff on." Staff felt there was enough staff to support people. One staff member told us, "I think they (staffing levels) are really good. I think we have enough staff." The registered manager told us how they tried to achieve consistency in staff usage and that they had not needed to use agency staff for around 12 months.

Staff supervisions and appraisals were taking place. Staff told us they completed an induction when they started. The service had dedicated staff on duty to support each individual’s needs. Records indicated that staff training was up to date.

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

We found the service was clean and tidy. Generally, relatives also felt the service was clean. One relative said, "Yes (it is clean), it's like brand new. I was very impressed." Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was in place and cleaning records were up to date and being completed.

Staff told us how they tried to prevent or control the spread of infection. One staff member said, “We follow hand hygiene, wear PPE and report any outbreak."

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

Medicines were generally safely managed; however, we identified a concern in relation to medicines support for one person that was acted upon immediately by the registered manager to ensure an appropriate process was implemented.

People received their medication when they needed it. People’s medication was safely stored. Creams were safely managed and application records detailed clearly where creams were to be applied. Appropriate guidance was in place for staff to follow and staff had received training in medicines administration. Relatives said they felt their loved ones received their medication. One relative said, "I don’t know what medicines [person] takes off the top of my head, but I know [person] gets them when they need them."