Selly Wood House Nursing 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 good. At this inspection the rating remains 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 management team put clear systems in place to make sure learning from incidents was understood and applied across the team. Management shared updates and key information routinely with staff, so everyone worked from accurate, current information. As people’s needs changed, staff amended documentation promptly to enable the service to deliver safe and effective support. The provider fostered an open culture where staff felt comfortable admitting when errors occurred. When things went wrong, the provider demonstrated a clear commitment to understanding the cause, identifying learning, and implementing practical measures to prevent recurrence. For example, when a pattern of repeated medication errors was identified, the provider carried out a thorough internal investigation and appropriately escalated the matter through their internal processes. Following this, proportionate and effective actions were taken to reduce the risk of similar issues happening again. The provider also notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and the local authority.

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 provider ensured safety and continuity of care remained central throughout each person’s journey, including referrals, admissions and transitions between services. Staff worked closely with people, families and healthcare partners to maintain safe systems of care and ensure information was shared promptly. The provider identified risks early through assessments, reviews and digital monitoring. Leaders regularly evaluated these processes to ensure they stayed effective. Care planning involved people and their representatives, and coordination with external agencies supported a smooth, consistent approach. Policies and safety procedures aligned with partner organisations, enabling clear communication, shared learning and safe continuity when people moved between different services.

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.
There was a strong safeguarding culture across the service, and staff took prompt action whenever concerns arose. People were supported to understand what keeping safe meant to them, and how to speak up about worries. One person told us, “I’ve always felt safe here because the staff always know what I need and are quick to help if anything changes.”
The provider had clear systems and procedures in place to protect people from abuse and neglect. Staff received safeguarding training and demonstrated a solid understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities. A staff member told us, “If we spot anything that doesn’t look right, we report it straight away. We don’t hesitate. Keeping people safe is our priority.”
Leaders worked closely with external partners including the local authority and CQC, and shared concerns appropriately to ensure people received timely support. Relatives were confident in the home’s approach, with one relative stating, “Staff are always around, and I feel my family member is safe and well looked after.” An up-to-date safeguarding policy was in place, and staff practice upheld people’s human rights. Mental capacity assessments (MCA) were completed, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were authorised lawfully and only when necessary.

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 service actively involved people and their families in understanding and managing risks. Staff took a holistic approach, assessing risks comprehensively and regularly reviewing care plans using a digital platform, with audits and observations ensuring hazards were identified and mitigated. Individualised risk assessments balanced safety with independence, enabling people to engage in meaningful activities and daily living tasks according to their abilities. For example, with support from staff, one person who had previously been bed-bound was supported to walk again and to attend community outings safely.
Peoples care plans clearly set out foreseeable risks, the strategies to reduce them, and any necessary restrictions. People and families reported feeling safe and supported, and staff consistently demonstrated an understanding of risk, safety, and the importance of enabling independence while protecting against harm.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.
Staff regularly checked equipment, including hoists, bed rails, and wheelchairs. Maintenance issues were promptly escalated through a digital platform and addressed by maintenance staff. The maintenance lead explained, “If an urgent safety issue arises, I isolate the area and resolve the concern or contact a contractor if it is outside my remit, ensuring safety at all times.”
Staff assessed risks in communal areas and individual rooms, considering mobility, cognition, and other needs, and coordinated well as a team to ensure people felt secure. Environmental hazards, such as trip risks or equipment faults, were proactively identified through monthly and six-monthly audits and addressed promptly.
Relatives and people felt confident in the safety of the home, with one person noting, “I do feel safe because the staff are always around to look after you, and this environment feels safe”.
However, the communal areas of the home lacked dementia friendly decor, with no sensory stimulation. Dementia friendly enhances the quality of life, independence, and safety of people who live with dementia. The absence of dementia friendly decor presented challenges in fully delivering person-centred care, as the environment did not optimally support residents' independence or ability to confidently navigate their surroundings.
Leaders had recognised these issues and included them on their live action plan, demonstrating awareness and ongoing work to improve the person-centred nature of the environment.

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.
The service maintained robust recruitment practices to ensure staff were experienced, competent, and suited to their roles. Managers screened candidates carefully, used structured interviews, and implemented probationary reviews to assess capability. Appraisals, competency assessments, and ongoing supervisions supported staff development, while HR provided guidance for both informal and formal performance management. Staff confirmed they felt supported, one stated, “Yes, I feel supported by leadership,” reflecting confidence in guidance and supervision.
The provider implemented appropriate staffing levels and skill mix to meet people’s needs safely. Care was delivered by a stable team of permanent staff, supplemented by trained agency staff when required. Staff completed all required training, and practice was regularly reinforced.
Staff development was actively promoted, with opportunities to progress internally. For example, a member of staff had developed from a housekeeping role to a leadership post, demonstrating the service’s commitment to nurturing talent. Poor performance was addressed promptly and confidentially, with lessons from incidents shared to maintain safe, high-quality care.

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 provider assessed and managed infection risks, ensuring staff consistently followed Infection Prevention Control (IPC) procedures, including correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and hand hygiene. IPC champions conducted audits and walkarounds, providing guidance to maintain standards. One staff member stated, “As an example, I monitor all staff and ensure they are following IPC procedures. If a staff member is not following the procedure correctly, I re-explain the issue and show them how to wash their hands properly.”
The home was generally clean and maintained. However, we noted some debris behind machinery in the upstairs sluice room. Management confirmed this area had been added to the cleaning schedule following our feedback.
We observed staff following current (IPC) guidance. For example, staff washed their hands between tasks, used aprons and gloves when serving food or providing personal care, and cleaned equipment after use. There was sufficient PPE available throughout the home, and staff used it appropriately. Hand-washing posters and PPE reminders were displayed in key areas, such as bathrooms, sluice rooms, and near hand-sanitiser stations, to support best practice. Roles and responsibilities for infection prevention were clearly defined, and staff promptly escalated any IPC concerns. Information about IPC risks was shared appropriately with staff, people, and visitors.

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 were needed in the medication care plans.
Staff managed people’s medicines safely and ensured they met individual needs. Storage, audits, and administration, including controlled drugs, were robust, with electronic monitoring of stock, temperatures, and expiry dates. Medicines were regularly reviewed by the GP, and protocols minimised unnecessary prescriptions.
People were involved in managing their medicines where possible, and care plans clearly reflected support needs. Relatives confirmed they were kept informed and involved, with one relative stating, “I know my relative’s medicines are managed well, and I am always kept up to date about any changes.” Staff supported this approach, noting, “We make sure medicines are checked and administered correctly, and we update relatives when anything changes.”
PRN medicines (medicines that are taken when needed rather than on a fixed schedule) were used effectively, with staff following guidance appropriately and personalised instructions clearly recorded where needed. The service maintained strong communication with pharmacy suppliers, ensuring timely access to medicines and continuity of care.