Lynbrook

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.

Processes were in place to ensure accidents and incidents were investigated to help identify any themes or trends which could affect people’s on-going health and safety in their home.

Relatives were confident that any concerns raised would be dealt with. One relative told us, “I would speak with [deputy manager]. They would deal with any concerns, they have a duty of responsibility.”

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 service worked with people, their families, advocates and health professionals to ensure there was continuity of care. When people required medical support, the provider ensured all relevant documentation accompanied them, so health professionals had key information about their medical needs.

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 service had clear safeguarding systems and processes to protect people from abuse and neglect. Staff had access to safeguarding training and the service’s policies advised them on how to respond if they witnessed poor practise. One staff member told us, “Yes, people are safe. We all know the residents well and support each other to keep people safe.”

Staff were confident if they raised concerns with management appropriate action would be taken.

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

Staff felt management support and care plans guided them on how to manage risk. They said they felt competent and supported to be able to prevent or respond to behaviour that communicated a need, emotions or distress.

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

Staff had good knowledge of fire safety procedures, and every person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP). The purpose of a PEEP is to ensure that all people can evacuate the building safely and promptly in the event of an emergency, regardless of their level of mobility or other health conditions.

The service was well maintained, free from trip hazards with exit doors locked where necessary. Maintenance checks had been done, for example, fire checks and gas certificates were up to date to ensure people’s safety.

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.

The provider ensured people received the level of staff support that had been identified by the local authority.

Staff said they had an induction when they started working for the service. They felt they had enough training to do their job well, received regular supervisions and felt supported by the management team. One staff member told us, “I have had all the training I need to do my job.”

The provider followed recruitment procedures to ensure all required checks were completed before staff started work at the service. Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. DBS checks provide information about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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.

People received support to maintain their own personal hygiene in line with their needs and preferences.

People were protected as much as possible from the risk of infection because premises and equipment were kept clean and hygienic. PPE was available to staff who knew when to wear it and how to dispose of it. The provider had task delegation processes to ensure that daily cleaning tasks were completed. For example, staff had to sign when specific areas of the home were cleaned or door handles were sanitised.

The provider did not consistently make sure that the storage and administration of medicines was safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Best practise was not consistently followed on the storage and recording of some homely remedy medicines. A homely remedy is a medicine used to treat minor ailments. They are purchased over the counter and do not need to be prescribed. They are kept as stock to give people access to medicines that would commonly be available in any household such as mild pain relief, treatment for coughs or indigestion. The manager told us they would review their processes for the storage and administration of these .

The staff team worked with health professionals to review people’s medicines and staff were trained and regularly assessed as competent to manage medicines safely.