Moor Allerton Care Centre

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to the management of risk.

This service scored 62 (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 learned to continually identify and embed good practice.

The manager had implemented learning from events both in the service and other locations under the same provider. Staff reported safety events appropriately and lessons learned were shared with staff at team meetings.

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.

Records showed healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care in a timely manner. Staff had a good relationship with the local GP practice and had frequent contact with them to effectively support the management of health conditions. A visiting professional said, “[Staff] always provide a comprehensive handover of their concerns or what the resident has told them when requesting a home visit from the GP surgery. Documents like ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms are always to hand and they prepare the residents’ documents when I have admitted a resident to handover to ambulance staff.”

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 had training in safeguarding and were able to describe the steps they would take if they had concerns about people being abused to ensure their safety. The provider reported incidents to the local authority when required.

The provider did not work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.
Risk assessments were not always person-centred. Most risk assessments contained generic information which did not take into account people’s specific circumstances. For example, considering how a person’s wheelchair was specifically configured for them. This meant people were at risk of receiving incorrect or unsafe care as staff may not have known the most appropriate ways of mitigating risk.

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

Risk assessments in relation to people’s homes were not always person-centred. Staff had received appropriate training to support the use of equipment in people’s homes.

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.

Staff were recruited safely, in line with best practice guidance. Staff had received training to support people appropriately. The manager carried out regular supervision sessions with staff.
A staff member said, “Yes, I do find that there is enough staff to be covering shifts. For example, if one of us were to ring in sick for that shift then we are able to ask another member of staff if they would like to cover this.”

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 supported people to keep their homes clean and tidy to reduce the risk of infection. People told us staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing personal care.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.
Most medicines were safely administered and recorded, but we found some areas for improvement.

Medicines administration records did not include details of specific medicines people were taking when they used pre-filled dosage boxes from the pharmacy. This was not in line with best practice guidance and medicines audits had not identified the issue. The provider took action to improve record keeping during the assessment.

Staff competencies were regularly checked by the manager, and staff had received training in managing medicines.