Rock House Residential 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 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. Accidents and incidents were recorded, analysed and reviewed. Lessons learned were identified and shared with staff teams.

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. Hospital information packs were available on the care planning system. This ensured key information could be shared to support safe and effective transfers between services. We heard about good working relationships with a range of health and care professionals. One professional told us, “When I visit, I am provided with all care plans which appear updated and well written.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve for this to be achieved. 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 safety concerns quickly and appropriately with the local authority. Members of staff confirmed they had access to policies and procedures and they knew what to do if they suspected harm or abuse. A member of staff said, “I have access to the safeguarding policies and know where to find them. If I suspected abuse, I would ensure the person is safe, report my concerns immediately to my manager or safeguarding lead, record factual information accurately, and follow the organisation's safeguarding procedures. The safety and wellbeing of people using the service is my priority. I would report concerns immediately to my manager and follow the whistleblowing policy if necessary.” A person who lived in Rock House Residential Home told us, “I like it here and I feel safe and comfortable.”

We saw evidence the provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to review people’s capacity and understanding around receiving care and support. The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things which mattered to them. People’s care plans were detailed and person-centred. Risks associated with care and supported had been assessed and actions to mitigate and reduce risks were identified. There was clear information about people’s preferences and how they liked their care and support to be provided. People’s care was delivered in line with their care plans.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Some doors were kept open with wedges, and we spoke to the registered manager who took immediate action to remove them and reminded staff to ensure wedges should not be used. The provider completed regular monitoring and checking of utilities and services throughout the care home. This included water temperature monitoring and flushing, portable appliance testing and equipment testing in line with industry standards.

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 which met people’s individual needs. Members of staff were recruited safely, and they were deployed effectively throughout the service. We did not hear call bells ringing for any length of time or hear people continuously calling out for support. Members of staff were deployed in areas where people spent their time, so they were able to respond quickly to requests for support. A member of staff told us, “Staffing levels are planned to meet people's assessed needs. Some individuals require support from 2 staff members, particularly for moving and handling or complex care needs, and this is clearly outlined in their care plans.” Members of staff received regular training and opportunities for skills development. One member of staff said, “I receive mandatory training, regular refreshers, supervision, team meetings, competency assessments, and ongoing support from senior staff and management.” A person who lived in Rock House Residential Home told us, "There are sufficient staff, and they seem to know what they’re doing. I would recommend this service.” A relative said, “There are loads of staff and they respond quickly to anyone with a need. Everything is good through my eyes. I’ve had no issues which I’ve needed to raise.”

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. The care environment was clean and well-maintained. There were stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE) through the care home. Members of staff confirmed they had access training to support good infection prevention and control practices. One member of staff told us, “I've finished my training in infection prevention and control, which included cleaning techniques, waste disposal, hand hygiene, PPE use, and stopping the spread of infections.”

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Administration of medicines was generally managed safely. There were systems and processes in place to audit and review medicine administration record (MAR) charts. We identified records of medicated patches did not always show these had been applied in line with best practice. We discussed this with the registered manager, and they took immediate action to mitigate and minimise potential risks. The registered manager took immediate action to mitigate and minimise any potential risks. A member of staff told us about the process they would follow if there was a medicines error, “The error must be reported immediately to the senior in charge or registered manager, documented appropriately, monitored for any impact on the person, and investigated to prevent recurrence.” A community professional with specific knowledge about medicines told us the service was ‘on the ball’ with medicines management and there were regular reviews of people’s medicines by the local primary care team.