Goldthorn Lodge

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 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.

Staff shared examples of lessons learned from incidents that had occurred at the service. This learning was predominantly shared in handovers and meetings. Incident records showed staff reported safety concerns in a prompt manner and these were investigated appropriately by the registered manager and provider.

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.

People were supported to safely transition into the service through individualised approaches that included preadmission assessments and visits to the service to meet the other people who used the service and the staff. A person who recently moved into the service had been unable to visit Goldthorn Lodge prior their admission due to their geographical location. Staff had set up weekly virtual meetings with the person to ensure they could still get to know the staff team, and we saw this approach helped the person to quickly settle on the day of their admission.

Staff told us people would be supported to move to other services as required using individualised approaches and information would be shared as required.

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.

People told us they felt safe at Goldthorn Lodge. One person said, “I feel very, very safe.” A relative had recently shared positive feedback with the provider. This included “we know [relation] is in safe hands”. Staff told us how they would identify and report abuse. One staff member said, “I would report to a senior, nurse or [the registered manager]. If [the registered manager] didn’t listen, then I would report it. There’s always a number in the board.” Records showed the registered manager made safeguarding referrals when required and training records showed staff had received safeguarding training.

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. We found no concerns and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place for people when needed.

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 told us staff helped them to keep safe. For example, 2 people described how staff helped them to keep safe when accessing the shower. Staff told us about people’s risks and how they managed them. The information staff and people told us matched the information recorded in their care records where risks and guidance to manage these risks had been recorded.

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

People told us they felt safe in their home environment. One person told us how staff had responded to prevent wasps entering their bedroom. Another person told us how fire risks associated with smoking were managed to keep them safe. Staff told us and we saw the environment and equipment used to keep people safe was checked on a regular basis. For example, regular checks of bed rails were completed to ensure they were safe to use.

The registered manager and operations manager told us about several improvements that had been made to the environment to improve safety. This included fitting new window restrictors and making positive fire safety changes.

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.

People told us there were always enough staff to keep them safe and support them when needed. One person said, “There are plenty of staff here.” Another person said, “When I need help, they come”. Staff also told us there were enough staff to keep people safe and agreed staffing levels were consistently met. One staff member said, “There is all the time in the day to support. I have worked in nursing homes where time is so short you are in and out like a conveyor belt.” The registered manager explained how staffing levels were planned around people’s needs and the activities people wished to participate in. Safe recruitment systems were in place.

Staff told us they completed training and attended supervision sessions that ensured they were equipped with the skills required to provide safe care and training records confirmed this.

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.

People told us the home was clean and staff followed safe infection prevention and control (IPC) practice, such as wearing personal protective equipment. One person said, “Every day they come and clean all the nooks and crannies and dust it.” Regular audits were completed by senior staff to ensure IPC standards were consistently met. A recent visit from the local IPC team recorded 100% compliance with IPC standards.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines were managed safely. Improvements were needed to ensure medicines were consistently managed safely. We saw medicines were not always transported to people safely and the systems in place to ensure accurate stock levels were maintained were not always effective. Safe processes to record medicines administration were not always followed. The registered manager investigated these concerns immediately and took action to reduce the chance of similar concerns being repeated. We will check this action has been effective at our next inspection.

However, people told us they received their medicines when they needed and we saw medicines were administered in a kind and compassionate manner. Medicines were ordered, stored and disposed of safely.