Foxton Court

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 75 (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.

Accidents and incidents were effectively monitored, with clear actions taken. Identified risks were addressed promptly. Any feedback given during the assessment was acted on swiftly and addressed.

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.

Staff carried out thorough pre-admission assessments and gathered comprehensive information before people moved into the service. This helped ensure continuity of care and confirmed the service could safely meet people’s needs. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals, including district nurses and GPs, to support safe admissions, effective care planning and ongoing monitoring. Our observations showed staff had a good understanding of people’s assessed risks and responded appropriately when needs changed.

Staff consistently maintained continuity of care, including during transitions between services, such as hospital. Relatives were actively involved in planning and felt reassured during changes. Staff were visible and supported timely and responsive care when needed.

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 demonstrated an understanding of how to report concerns. The provider demonstrated timely and appropriate information sharing. Feedback from people and relatives consistently indicated they felt safe. One relative said, “I can sleep well knowing [person] is safe. I have never had a worry about her. I chose the home and feel it was absolutely the best.”

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’s care plans and risk assessments were computerised and contained information about care and support needs, and associated risks. People and relatives confirmed they had been involved in completing these documents. Staff could access these records to provide safe and effective care.

Staff showed a clear understanding of people’s care needs and associated risks, including managing dietary needs for people living with diabetes and supporting those at risk of skin damage.

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

The environment was generally clean, bright and homely. We noted some areas would benefit from additional lighting. This was addressed immediately after feedback.Health and safety checks, including fire safety, were up to date. Risk assessments covered environmental risks. Animals which lived at the service, including a dog, had not all been risk assessed or monitored for health checks, this was addressed immediately.

The premises were well maintained, although new flooring was required in places. This was mainly addressed by the provider before the end of the assessment with further enhancements planned. Equipment was stored safely when not in use, and seating supported people to sit and stand comfortably.

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. One person said, “Staff are busy at times, but manage well. Never had any problems.”

Observations established enough care staff were on duty and staff calculating tools confirmed this. However, during staff feedback we received a small number of comments regarding staffing shortfalls at times, particularly regarding night shift. We brought this to the attention of the registered manager to further review but we had no evidence of any impact to people. The kitchen was short staffed on the day of the assessment, but staff worked well to ensure there was no impact on people. Interviews had taken place on the day to address this and an offer of employment was going to be made.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed. This included requesting references, and having a Disclosure and Barring Service check completed before new staff started working at the service. Staff appeared well trained and able to deal with complex situations which arose. We noted staff had not all received suitable learning disability training as required. This was in hand with the provider to address this in the coming weeks.

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.

The service was clean and tidy with no unpleasant odours. Staff had been trained in infection, prevention and control and used personal protective equipment (PPE) well. We identified the kitchen area needed more suitable PPE storage facilities. The provider responded without delay by installing a Danicentre outside the kitchen. A Danicentre is a wall‑mounted PPE station that keeps gloves, aprons and masks organised, visible and hygienically stored.

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.

Electronic medicines administration records confirmed people had received their medicines in a timely manner by trained staff who had also had their competencies in medicines management checked regularly. Medicines were stored safely in dedicated medicines rooms. An improvement to disposal procedures was implemented immediately. This related to medicines awaiting return for destruction, which should be stored in fully tamper‑proof containers. All 'as required' medicines were managed well, and this included paracetamol. All the people we spoke with confirmed there had been no issues with their medicines administration.