Old Alresford 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to fit and proper persons employed.

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.

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.

People and their relatives told us people felt safe living in the home and staff knew how to protect people from abuse and who they would report any concerns to both internally and externally. The registered manager shared concerns appropriately by following the correct reporting process and informing all relevant agencies.

Where restrictive practices were in place we found, restrictions were kept to a minimum. Where required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place to legally authorise restrictions placed on people to keep them safe.

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.

Risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and plans were in place to reduce the likelihood of harm. For example, people were assessed for risks of choking and risks relating to medical conditions. Staff knew people well and people told us they were involved in developing their risk assessments. People were supported to manage risk while maintaining independence and the service promoted positive risk taking.

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 made sure there were enough qualified, and experienced staff. They made sure staff received effective support, supervision and development.

However, the provider was not always working in line with the legal requirements as not all pre-employment checks had been completed to ensure only suitable staff would be employed. The provider had not always sought satisfactory evidence of staff conduct in previous employment related to health or social care. This was raised at the last inspection. Where staff had been previously employed to work with children or vulnerable adults, the provider failed to obtain satisfactory verification, so far as reasonably practicable, of the reason why the staff members employment in those positions had ended. This increased the risk that staff unsuited to care work, would be employed in the service. The operations director told us the registered manager was working on rectifying this and would ensure this was completed going forward.

The registered manager had a training matrix in place which evidenced all staff had completed their statutory and mandatory training. Supervisions were taking place in line with the provider's policy.

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.

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.

Staff received medication training, and their competency was checked to ensure they understood the requirements for the safe administration of medicines. Staff supported and involved people to manage their medicines. Records showed people had received their medicines as prescribed. Staff knew people well and were able to confidently describe how they would manage ‘when required’ medicines. The staff team were proactive at reporting any changes to people’s medicines promptly.