Dresden House Limited

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 service scored 69 (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 reported safety events and lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

After an accident or incident, the registered manager reviewed what happened and shared the key learning with staff, helping everyone understand how to reduce risks. One member of staff told us, “We get told what we need to know and what has happened at a handover every day.” As a result, practical steps were put in place quickly to help prevent similar incidents occurring again. For example, people identified as being at high risk of falls were provided with sensor mats by their beds to alert staff when they moved, helping to reduce the likelihood of further falls.

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.

The registered manager or deputy manager assessed people’s needs before they moved into the service to ensure the home could meet their requirements. They continued to work closely with healthcare professionals once people had moved in, promoting safe and consistent care. During the inspection, we observed visiting health professionals providing support. One person told us, “I have a nurse visit me 2 or 3 times a week to change my dressing.”

When people were moving on from the service, external professionals were invited into the home to complete their own assessments, supported by staff who knew the person well. This helped ensure all relevant information was shared and transitions were planned safely and smoothly, reducing the risk of gaps in care.

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.

People we spoke with did not raise any concerns about their safety. One person told us, “If I had any concerns, I would talk to the manager.”

When safeguarding incidents occurred the registered manager responded quickly and appropriately. Staff we spoke with knew what constituted abuse and who to report any potential abuse allegations to. One member of staff told us, “I would tell the registered manager or deputy and if they didn’t do anything, I would raise it with the local authority.”

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.

People had the equipment they needed to help keep them safe, such as walking frames and sensor mats to support their mobility. Management regularly reviewed care plans and risk assessments. However, not all documents fully reflected the risks to people. For example, 1 person sometimes became distressed, but their care plan did not describe how staff should support them at these times. Despite this gap, staff knew people well and understood how to keep them safe in practice. One member of staff told us, “No, the paperwork doesn’t reflect their needs when they get upset, but we all know what to do, it’s ok.” We observed this person becoming upset and saw staff respond kindly, calmly and in a safe manner.

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

Regular safety checks of the environment were carried out to ensure the premises remained safe, well‑maintained and fit for their intended purpose. These routine checks covered key areas such as hot water temperature monitoring, legionella controls and fire safety systems. Staff completed these checks consistently and recorded the outcomes, allowing any issues to be identified and addressed promptly. This proactive approach supported a safe environment for people living in the service and helped reduce avoidable risks.

Although the environment was well maintained and safe, we noted that the bathrooms and shower rooms were outdated and in need of refurbishment. Over time, their condition may affect both safety and the effectiveness of cleaning.

The provider generally made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The registered manager used a dependency tool to assess and maintain safe staffing levels and had identified the service was currently overstaffed during night‑time hours. People we spoke with generally told us there were enough staff available to meet their needs.

From our observations, staff were busy but able to respond to people in a timely and supportive way. However, 1 member of staff told us, “Some people go upstairs in the afternoon, but some others want to go, and we encourage them not to because we don’t have staff upstairs to keep an eye on them. Some people want to go up and then come down straight away; there’s not enough of us to keep doing that all afternoon.” Another member of staff told us, “People are safe, but it can be hectic and we could do with more staff.” This feedback suggested staffing levels may not have been sufficient to fully support people’s choices and independence.

New staff were recruited safely, following appropriate recruitment procedures, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and verification of relevant employment history. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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.

At the time of the inspection, the service was managing an infection outbreak. The registered manager had taken prompt and appropriate action by reporting the outbreak to the relevant external agencies and implementing clear measures to treat affected individuals and limit further spread. These steps were proving effective, as the number of cases had begun to decline. Staff were kept informed of the situation, and infection‑control practices were reinforced to ensure everyone understood their responsibilities.

During our visit, we observed that the environment was clean, well‑maintained and visibly hygienic. Staff were seen wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when required, and used it correctly, demonstrating good infection‑prevention awareness. Enhanced cleaning routines were also in place to reduce cross‑contamination risks and maintain a safe environment for people living in the service.

The kitchen continued to demonstrate high standards of cleanliness and food hygiene, having achieved a score of 5 for its hygiene rating last year 2025.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

During the inspection, we found an excessive amount of medicines being stored, which increased the risk of stock becoming difficult to monitor. This was reflected in our observations, where some items in the medicines’ fridge were found to be out of date. The registered manager explained that the pharmacist had sent too much medicine, however action had not been taken swiftly to return the unwanted stock.

We also noted that several people were receiving pain relief medicines prescribed as PRN (to be taken when required) on a regular basis, without any documented review to confirm whether this remained appropriate. These issues indicated systems for monitoring medicines, reviewing ongoing need, and maintaining safe stock control were not always effective.

Staff received training to administer medication and had their competence regularly assessed by a manager.