The 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 the last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 strong proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and complete honesty. Staff actively listened to concerns about safety and thoroughly investigated and reported safety events. Staff understood how to raise concerns and felt confident doing so, and told us concerns were taken seriously and addressed promptly. Staff described being involved in reviewing how the service worked and learning from incidents and experience. One staff member said, “The court is a great place to work our senior is fair we all learn new things every day we all help each other as we are all a team.”

Systems were in place to ensure safe care pathways and transitions. The staff and management team worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. Professionals told us staff played an active role within multidisciplinary teams and attended appointments and meetings to support continuity of care.

Staff 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. Staff understood when Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations would need to be sought and what to do if there were conditions imposed.

Safeguarding systems and processes were in place, and staff had received safeguarding training. Staff could describe the types of abuse and understood how to raise concerns. However, feedback showed there had been an incident where the oversight of safeguarding practices had not always effective. Records showed safeguarding concerns were raised when identified and this was followed‑up. The provider also ensured there was management oversight and learning in place to reduce the risk of recurrence.Leaders took action when issues were highlighted during the assessment, but these improvements had not yet been fully embedded at the time of inspection.

Staff worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Staff took a balanced and proportionate approach to risk, which supported people and respected their choices. Risk assessments were in place and assisted staff to identify how to mitigate risks. A staff member said, “Everybody is involved from the care staff, seniors and all the way up to management.” Staff were in the process of ensuring the new electronic care record system captured all of the relevant information.

The provider maintained a safe and suitable environment at The Court. Professionals told us the home was “always clean and tidy,” and relatives described the service as a place where people felt comfortable and at home. Staff explained that maintenance systems were in place and risks within the environment were addressed promptly to keep people safe. The staff team knew who to contact when people might benefit from additional aids or equipment. Staff were trained to use any equipment people needed.

Overall, the provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Recruitment practices and training levels met the required standards. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. However, there had been recent difficulties in ensuring the right staff skill mix worked on each shift. The registered manager had oversight of this and was actively addressing deployment within the service. A staff member said, “I believe there isn't enough staff at times,as some staff aren't able to carry out all the duties.” The registered manager was aware of the recent issues and was actively addressing them.

Staff assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff appropriately followed the required infection control guidelines. They supported people to adopt good hygiene practices.

Staff made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. If audits identified any gaps, such as too much stock, action plans were implemented to address them, and staff were reminded of best practice. These practices ensured staff managed medicines safely. Staff followed Stopping Over‑Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or both (STOMP) principles. Staff who administered medicines had the appropriate training and competency checks. Storage areas were secure, and temperature checks were recorded. Medication Administration Records were accurate, and controlled drugs were handled in line with regulations.