Castle Care Teesdale Limited

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 69 (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.

The management team had a positive approach to learning and improvement of the service. The provider had systems in place to monitor and respond to any accidents or 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.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them starting to use the service. Care records were person-centred and detailed and were developed with people.

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.

Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to raise any concerns. They were confident any concerns would be dealt with promptly by the provider. People told us they felt safe using the service.

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.

Risks relating to people were identified and well managed. Risk assessments were person-centred and sufficiently detailed to guide staff in the support and care people needed. However, we found one record relating to manual handling needed to be more detailed. This was reviewed and updated during the inspection, the review included the person, their family member and their social worker.

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

Risks within people’s home environments were identified in care records and generally well-managed, with mitigation in place where required.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Recruitment checks were in place prior to staff starting to work at the service. There had been no recent new starters. We discussed with the provider, how the use of a checklist as a form of oversight and assurance that checks have all been made would ensure they recruited staff safely.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff deployed to provide consistent care. Staff received effective training and support. However formal supervision had not been taking place in line with the providers policy. All staff spoken with told us they felt supported and told us they had sufficient opportunity for discussions with managers about their work and development. A staff member told us, “Absolutely I feel supported. They [managers] are always there if you ask.” The registered manager told us they would review formal supervision processes. There was a range of training staff were required to undertake. We discussed training frequency requirements with the provider, some of which were not in line with best practice. During the inspection the management team reviewed frequency of all training to ensure this met good practice guidance. People told us the staff were well trained.

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. Risks associated with infection prevention and control were well managed. People told us staff always wore appropriate personal protective equipment.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Medicines were managed and administered safely. Staff had received training in medicines administration. People told us they received their medicines as prescribed. The manager team audited medicines records each month, however records of what was checked were not detailed. We discussed this during the inspection, and a more detailed audit record was put in place. The provider told us they would develop this further.