Queens Lodge 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 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 service demonstrated a positive and improving safety culture. Staff understood the importance of learning from incidents and there was evidence of lessons being shared across the team. Accident and incident reviews were thorough, with clear actions and audit trails in place. Staff told us they felt listened to and supported under the new leadership, which has fostered a culture of openness and better communication.

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.

Processes for managing risk and transitions were generally safe and well organised. Staff worked effectively with external professionals such as GPs, hospital staff and physiotherapists to ensure continuity of care. Visiting professionals told us they had a good working relationship with the service.

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.

People were safeguarded from abuse and neglect. Staff understood their responsibilities and felt confident raising concerns. Safeguarding logs and incident reviews showed appropriate action and learning from events. Relatives told us they felt assured their family members were safe, highlighting significant improvements since the change in management. Staff and leaders were aware of when to apply for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) and any conditions associated with this were clearly shared with staff.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. However, staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were supported to make day-to-day choices, but involvement in formal risk assessments and care planning was limited. Most people and relatives told us they had not seen care plans or been consulted about risk management. The management team was aware of this. Work had begun to involve people and their relatives in care planning and there were further plans to hold regular reviews in the imminent future.

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, tidy, and well maintained. Fire doors were compliant, and environmental audits such as water temperature and mattress checks were completed. People and relatives consistently praised the cleanliness and homely feel 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.

There were enough staff to provide safe care, but deployment required review. At busy times, call bells rang for longer periods of time than people expected. Staff training compliance was largely within expected standards and was improving; the management team had a clear plan in place and expected this to be resolved imminently. Recruitment checks were completed, and staff were safely recruited.

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.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) practices were effective. Personal protective equipment (PPE) stations and hand sanitising points were available throughout. Staff wore PPE appropriately and hand hygiene was observed during care and medication administration. Cleaning routines were robust, and audits confirmed compliance. People and relatives reported the home was spotless and free from odours. The provider had robust systems to monitor infection risk and escalate this promptly.

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

Medicines were generally managed safely, with robust covert medicine and ‘as and when required’ medication (PRN) protocols in place. Staff demonstrated good knowledge, but there were some isolated gaps in medication charts. While people had received the medication, the gaps were administrative errors and provider monitoring continues to drive improvement in this area.