Hazeldown Care 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

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. The provider had a system in place to record all accidents and incidents and actions taken to mitigate the risk of future occurrences. All reports of accidents and incidents were reviewed by either the registered or deputy manager. In addition to this, monthly analysis of accidents and incident was undertaken to identify any patterns or trends. However, this service had very few events to review but maintained good oversight of safety incidents.

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 which was reflected in the positive feedback we received. One relative said, “[The move] was done very well. Because it was just after lockdown and [person] been in a place [person] wasn't very happy with. [Person] didn't want to be in a home. But it took [person] a little while to settle in, but I have to say, the staff were excellent and [person’s] happy. [Person’s] having a fantastic life there.”

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. Safeguarding incidents were quickly identified and reported to the Local Authority. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and training records showed staff had received training in safeguarding. People told us they felt safe living in the service, and one person told us, “Oh yes, [I] definitely feel safe here.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. We were assured from records we reviewed and feedback we received that people were cared for in a safe way. Risk assessments were detailed and documented how to minimise identified risks.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. We found the general cleanliness of the service was good and a relative said, “No concerns about [the cleanliness] at all.” Records we reviewed showed there was regular servicing and inspections of equipment, fire-fighting equipment and utilities. There was a dedicated member of maintenance staff, and one staff member told us, “If there’s any issues with anything, [they’re] on top of it immediately, which is brilliant.”

The provider did not always make sure there were enough staff. We spoke with the registered manager about the staffing arrangements at night as the current arrangement was one waking staff and one sleep-in staff. We questioned if this was sufficient given people’s care needs. The provider agreed to review this. Staff were qualified, skilled and experienced, and received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. We received mixed feedback about staffing levels. One person told us, “Could do with one or two more staff”, they went on to tell us about how they have never had to wait for staff and there were always staff available if they needed to speak to them. A relative told us, “I don’t think staffing levels are a problem.”

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. There were effective systems in place to manage the risk of infection such as staff training, risk assessments and infection prevention and control policies and procedures. Our observations showed staff wore PPE where needed and observed good hand hygiene, for example, when administering medicines.

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. People’s medicines were administered safely and staff signed to show when they had been given to the person receiving them. There were records to show how people liked to take their medicines, and where medicines were administered covertly, the appropriate authorisations were in place. Regular audits were undertaken as well as spot checks to ensure there were no gaps in records and stock counts tallied.