Allswell Lodge

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.

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. A person said that it was a “very good” home. A family member told us, “I have no concerns with the safety of my [relative]. The staff are extremely attentive and always there to support my [my relative]. He is looked after very well, and safety is a priority.”

The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff were aware of the safeguarding procedure and knew the actions they had to take should they see people being at risk of abuse. They said, “Safeguarding is about the abuse. I would report to the manager first and if no action, I would take this further. Yes, the manager would promptly act on concerns” and “We make sure all residents are safe and protected from harm such as physical and mental abuse. I would make a report and report it to the manager straight away if I saw something not right. We would call the local authority or whistleblow to CQC if the manager is not acting.”

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Although care plans were detailed and informative, people's risk assessments did not always indicate the likelihood and severity of the identified risks. This meant that staff were not provided with information in relation to the impact the identified risks had on people and how likely the risks were to occur. This was also evidenced by staff always assisting a person to walk the stairs despite the fact there were no risks identified that required such risk management plan in place. Also, people’s care records did not always include the specific long and short-term goals that people wanted to achieve so that they felt enabled to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider worked well with external organisations to continuously improve care and support for people using the service. A healthcare professional told us, “Our strong relationship with the home facilitates open communication; they promptly inform us of any changes to residents' [care needs] … The staff are proactive in addressing potential risks, for instance, seeking our input when a resident refuses to use [equipment], to minimize risk to both the resident and themselves.”

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, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Family members told us there were enough staff to support people with their care needs. The staff team worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Although pre-employment checks were carried out by the provider making sure they employed suitable staff for the role, there wasn’t a process in place to identify any changes in staff's circumstances between the 3 yearly DBS checks. This was discussed with the registered manager who told us they had a stable staff team with a good employment history but that they planned to address this immediately.

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.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.