Chestnuts Retirement Home

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

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.

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.

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 provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and training. Staff worked together to provide safe care that met people's individual needs.

While recruitment processes were in place, records did not always demonstrate that gaps in employment histories had been fully explored and documented. This is important to ensure recruitment procedures are robust and provide assurance that appropriate checks have been completed when assessing a person's suitability for employment.

Following feedback, the registered manager told us they would undertake a retrospective review of recruitment records to ensure any gaps in employment history were fully explored and recorded.

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.

Medicines were stored safely and securely. Systems were in place to manage stock levels and medicine records were generally well maintained.

People received their medicines in line with their prescribed treatment and individual needs. Protocols to support the administration of medicines prescribed on an 'as required' basis, and records to guide the application of medicines applied to the skin, were in place; however, these were not consistently available for all relevant medicines.

Some people had detailed protocols to support the management of specific health conditions and reduce the risk of adverse events. However, this information was not consistently available for all people and conditions to ensure clear information to support safe and effective care.

Fire risk assessments relating to medicines applied to the skin were not in place at the time of the inspection. The provider responded promptly and confirmed that all required actions had been taken following the visit.