Ernest Bold Resource 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 remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 78 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The registered manager spoke confidently about the learning culture of the home. They gave us examples of how learning was identified and implemented including through incidents and accidents, the service user’s improvement plans and by utilising information staff shared about people.

Staff told us they were involved with this process and they confirmed information was shared with them when needed. They felt involved with all aspects of learning within the home. There were systems in place to ensure lessons were learnt to ensure good practice was continued.

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Relatives spoke positively about the transition process with 1 relative describing it as, “Amazing.” They went on to say, “It went so smoothly. We had the afternoon there and the evening with tea. We then had 1 night there to see how it went.” Another relative told us, “We had a visit and looked around. Then she went for a tea visit. Then went and stayed overnight. It was quite traumatic at the time; it was a big thing to go and stay overnight. [Person] has not looked back since and what I have noticed is when I arrive with her that staff appear from wherever they are and make a point of welcoming her.”

Staff and the registered manager spoke positively about transition processes they had been involved with. One staff member told us, “It can be a huge step for families, so we are always considerate of that.”

The registered manager was able to describe a situation to us where they had gone beyond their role to support a person to have a safe transition. A person had attended Ernest Bold Resource Centre as an emergency placement following the passing of their carer. Staff knew the person well and wanted to provide support to the person at this challenging time in their life.

As well as the staff team sensitively supporting the person through their grief, they supported and kept the person up to date with funeral plans and arranged times to engage with family who lived afar. After assessment and support, it was agreed the person would be suitable for a residential placement at 1 of the providers local authority establishments. The service led on the transition of this, they coordinated a transition, ensuring the person had the support they needed from staff, they shared relevant information with the residential service, so they were able to begin building their support plan. They adopted a multi-disciplinary approach and involved a range of professionals to ensure the holistic needs of the person could be met at their new home. They led on the process, ensuring the person was involved and comfortable every step of the way.

The registered manager told us, “It was a pleasure to be able to support a person at such a difficult time in their life, it was handled with sensitivity, care and person centred throughout.”

Care plans and risk assessments that were developed as part of the transition were robust, detailed and individual to the person’s needs. These plans and assessments were adapted and developed with family members and by observing the person in their new environments. The person’s care was regularly reviewed to ensure it was up to date.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s individual needs were assessed before they started using the service. There was a detailed referral and transition process in place that was followed. As part of the transition process, the provider gained feedback from people and their relatives so they could continually review and develop this process based on this feedback. The feedback we reviewed on this process was positive.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and relatives raised no concerns about safety. People looked comfortable in their environment, and 1 relative told us, when asked, “Yes very much so. I have confidence in the staff.”

There were systems in place to ensure safeguarding concerns were identified, reviewed and investigated. Staff told us they had received safeguarding training and were able to tell us the action they would take if they had any safeguarding concerns.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that when needed, DoLS were in place for people.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and relatives were happy with how their risks were managed. One relative gave us a detailed account how their relations health needs, which may pose a risk to them, were safely managed.

There was a system in place to ensure people had care plans and risk assessments in place that had been developed individually, based on their assessed needs and which were regularly reviewed. Care plans and risk assessments were developed with people, those important to them and professionals where needed.

These plans considered people’s health needs, mobility, periods of emotional distress and dietary requirements. These were reviewed regularly or when changes had occurred.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

The environment had been adapted and decorated to meet people’s individual needs. There were various pieces of moving and handling equipment, adapted baths and equipment for people to shower or bath with, celling track hoists and differing varieties of beds. Although the home was used for short stays, there were still pictures of people displayed around the home, to ensure it had a homely feel for people.

Where needed, any risks to the environment or premises had been considered and assessed, such as fire safety. There were processes in place to ensure any risks were identified so that appropriate action could be taken. The registered manager told us they took pride in ensuring any concerns to the environment were acted upon promptly.

The provider had systems in place to ensure there were enough staff available to support people.

People, relatives and staff felt there were enough staff to keep people safe. A relative told us there were enough staff and commented, “They are very accommodating if I need changes.” Another relative told us, “They are not short staffed to my knowledge.”

There was a system in place to ensure there were enough staff available and where needed staffing was delivered in line with people’s assessed levels of need.

Staff told us and we saw they had received mandatory training, including training that was specific to people’s individual needs.

Staff had received the relevant pre-employment checks before they could start working with people to ensure they were safe to do so.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

People and relatives raised no concerns with the environment. One relative told us, “From what I have seen [the home is] clean and well maintained.”

We saw the home was clean and people were protected from the risk of cross infection. Staff told us and records confirmed they had received training in infection prevention. There was enough Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) available for staff which was accessible around the service. There were processes in place to monitor IPC to ensure concerns were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

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

No concerns were raised with how medicines were managed. One relative said, “No wrong doses. They check medication in”. Another relative told us, “They are counting them in and out and cannot think of any errors.”

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were stored, monitored and administered safely. When people had ‘as required’ medicines there was guidance in place for staff to follow. Staff administering medicines had received training in medicines management and their competency was checked to ensure they were safe to administer these to people. Regular checks were completed on medicines and the storage of these.