Drakelow 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 that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

The provider did not always work effectively with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not consistently provide care that was safe, supportive, and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments and care plans were in place and reviewed regularly. However, we identified some areas of risk that had not been fully or formally assessed. We recommended that the provider take action to address these issues and review the risk assessments currently in place to ensure they remain up to date, comprehensive, and robust.

The provider did not always identify and manage potential risks within the care environment. They did not consistently ensure that equipment, facilities, and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Appropriate checks and maintenance were being completed. However, we found some shortfalls in the actions taken in response to identified risks, with the provider experiencing difficulties in sourcing staff or contractors to undertake minor maintenance work. We recommended that the provider take further steps to ensure environmental recommendations and required maintenance actions are addressed in a timely manner.

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.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider did not always ensure that medicines and treatments were managed safely and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences.

The provider did not have fully effective systems for monitoring and oversight of how people were supported with their medicines. Although people received their medicines safely, further work was required to ensure that good practice guidance was consistently followed. We recommended that the provider strengthen its governance and auditing processes to provide effective oversight of medicines management and to promote compliance with current best practice.