White Rose 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 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. Opportunities for learning and reflective practice were actively sought by the service. There was a clear system for reporting incidents and a strong focus on using incidents as an opportunity to identify where people may have support needs which were not being met. There was detailed analysis of incidents to identify themes or trends and this information was then shared to develop staff practice within the service, and within the other provider services. The provider told us there was also a focus on sharing positive practice, to learn from what good looks like in specific areas.

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 staff ensured thorough pre-admission assessments were completed and transitions into the service were extremely well planned. People and their relatives told us they had been very involved in informing and developing care plans. A person told us, “They [staff] understand my needs well.”

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 protected people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were trained to identify the signs of abuse and understood the actions they should take to keep people safe if they suspected it. Everyone we spoke with told us people were safe. One person said, “I feel safe because you are surrounded by good people. All your worries here are taken away.” People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. Any imposed DoLS conditions were included in people’s care plans, monitored and met.

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. Risk assessments were completed comprehensively and updated on a regular basis. People were offered involvement in their care plan and risk assessment reviews, and it was explained to the service users why they are in place, so people understood risks were minimised in the least restrictive way. Systems in place ensured staff were trained and equipped with the skills and knowledge they needed to support people safely. Staff knew people well and this was evidenced during our assessment.

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 care environment was well-maintained and safe. Checks and reviews of essential services including gas, electricity and water were completed regularly. We found there was equipment in place for people if they required it and systems were in place to ensure equipment was regularly maintained. The staff carried out regular checks on safety, including fire safety. All people had detailed personal evacuation plans in place, to ensure the people at the service were evacuated safely in an emergency.

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. Staff received support through regular supervision and appraisal. This ensured staff had the skills and confidence to respond effectively to people’s needs. Staff were described by people as, “Well trained”. We observed safe numbers of staff on duty and found communal and dining areas had good staff presence to respond to need. Staff were recruited safely, with appropriate pre-employment checks carried out before staff started working at the home which included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.

The provider thoroughly assessed and managed the risk of infection. They always quickly detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and always shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. We observed the service to be exceptionally clean and free from any infection hazards. A relative told us, “[Relative’s] room is pristine and it always smells fresh.”

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. Medicines were stored, administered and documented safely in line with best practice. Effective auditing systems were in place to ensure any issues were rectified in a timely manner. Staff completed medicines administration training and were assessed as competent before administering medicines. Staff told us they had received effective training in medicines management and knew what action to take if a medicine error had occurred.