Currergate 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 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. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.
The provider had effective systems in place for recording and reviewing accidents and falls. Incident forms were detailed, signed off by the registered manager or senior staff, and demonstrated actions had been taken and followed up. Monthly analysis was completed, which enabled the provider to identify trends and make improvements.
Care plans were usually updated promptly following incidents, and risk assessments were reviewed and updated to reflect any changes in people’s needs.
There was also evidence of learning from medication errors. Immediate action had been taken to maintain people’s safety, and learning was shared with the staff team to reduce the risk of recurrence. Overall, the service demonstrated a clear focus on learning from incidents and improving safety.
 

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 had an effective pre-admission process which ensured staff could meet the needs of any new admissions. Information from pre-admission assessments fed directly into care planning, enabling staff to prepare appropriately for each person’s arrival.
We also found evidence of good partnership working with external agencies. Relevant information was shared safely and promptly, supporting smooth and timely admissions. This helped ensure continuity of care and reduced the risk of gaps in important information.
 

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.
A safeguarding policy was in place and staff were aware of this and knew how to report any concerns. The provider had clear systems to manage safeguarding and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). A DoLS matrix was used, and although it did not include conditions, these were set out in applications, and evidence was maintained which confirmed they were being followed.
The provider did not have a system in place to clearly capture notifications to allow patterns or trends to be easily identified. However, the safeguarding tracker was thorough and included all relevant notifications with details of events and actions taken. All incidents we reviewed had been reported appropriately to the correct authorities.
 

Although the provider had systems to manage risk, improvements were needed to ensure risk management was consistent and fully embedded in practice.
People and relatives told us they felt safe living at the service. Staff were trained in managing risk and in meeting the needs of people they supported. All risk assessments we reviewed were in place, up to date, and had been updated following incidents such as falls or illness. However, we found most assessments were checklist-style and did not provide detailed guidance on identifying, reducing, or monitoring risks. This information was included in care plans instead.
We also noted repositioning records and fluid monitoring were not always completed accurately, even for people with assessed risks in these areas. We found no evidence of harm to anyone affected and the provider had taken action to address these issues. Continued improvement was needed so staff could embed these practices consistently and reduce any future risk of harm.
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.
The service was clean, well maintained, and had a warm, homely feel. All required environment certifications were in place, with records showing regular servicing of equipment and routine checks on the environment. The new extension provided large bedrooms with wide doors for accessibility and was designed to meet people’s needs.
Bedrooms were personalised with soft furnishings and included equipment people required. Communal areas were spacious and nicely decorated, with several options for people to choose from, including a lounge, a dining room with a bar, and an orangery, giving flexibility in how people spent their day.
 

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.
There was enough staff on duty to meet people’s assessed needs, and this was reflected in the rotas. Most staff also reported there was enough staff on shifts, including nights and weekends. Recruitment processes were robust and had been followed in the staff files we reviewed. A supervision matrix was in place, showing supervisions and an annual appraisal occurring for staff. The provider had also implemented recent changes to the supervision document which helped embed the service’s values more clearly.
Training compliance was good, with all mandatory courses completed and additional training provided, including end-of-life care and learning disability support. Competency checks for medicines were carried out, although these did not include staff reflections on learning or areas where they may require additional support.
 

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.
Staff followed infection prevention and control (IPC) practices well. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was used appropriately, and staff adhered to policy by keeping hair tied back and being bare below the elbows. Cleaning schedules were in place and consistently completed, keeping the service clean and hygienic. Handwashing stations and alcohol gel dispensers were well stocked throughout the service. Regular IPC audits were carried out, and compliance was monitored effectively.
 

Systems for managing medicines required improvement to ensure safe and consistent practice across the service.

Medicines were stored safely, with temperature checks completed for the medication room and fridges. Controlled drugs were recorded accurately, stock checks were correct, and returns were well managed. Ordering processes appeared effective, and MAR charts were consistently completed. Creams were stored and managed appropriately.
Some shortfalls in medicine management were noted. Patch rotation requirements were not consistently followed, and there was no oversight of this by clinical staff. Time-specific medicines were not always administered in line with prescribers’ and manufacturers’ instructions. PRN protocols were in place but lacked detailed guidance for variable dose medicines. High-risk medicines were not included in care plans, and medication care plans generally required more detail, with 1 plan showing conflicting information about a pain patch.
Despite this, the service was very responsive and shared evidence of immediate action taken to address many of these issues. Stronger processes had been implemented, which now needed embedding to ensure safe and consistent practice is in place to minimise any risk of harm.