Windy Ridge Care 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 providers incident and accident policy and procedure was robust. Staff reported any accidents and incidents promptly. The manager reviewed incident reports and shared lessons learnt with the team, preventing future incidents occurring. The registered manager also reviewed people’s risk assessments and care plans and involved medical professionals when appropriate. For example, following repeated falls a person’s medicines were reviewed by their GP and changes made. Another person had been referred to a speech and language therapist after a choking incident and their care plan had been updated.

Any complaints received by the service were taken seriously and responded to. Records were kept showing details of the complaint, investigation and outcome.

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.

Staff told us how they were made aware of people’s health and care needs, wants and wishes when moving into the service. Regular daily meetings including handovers and ‘10 at 10’ meetings were used to inform staff on duty about people’s specific needs, for example mobility, diet, and medical history. Pre-admission assessments were completed by the clinical lead nurse, and we saw examples of these and other records including hospital discharge summaries. The registered manager described the discharge process when people left the home, which included collaboration with any new provider or agency.

Records showed people were referred to other healthcare professionals when needed. There was a weekly GP review which included input from other members of the multi-disciplinary team.

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.

There were appropriate policies in place to protect people from abuse and staff had training in safeguarding adults and children. Staff could describe actions they would take if they suspected or saw abuse. Records showed the registered manger had reported and investigated incidents appropriately and promptly when required. The registered manager had implemented processes to enable safeguarding to be discussed with the team as required. This meant staff were aware of any events and people were safeguarded from abuse and neglect.

People did not always receive consistent support from staff to manage risks associated with their health and wellbeing. This was because risks were not always monitored and/or managed in a timely and effective way. There was a lack of clear and personalised records and lack of monitoring of follow up actions.

People’s care plans contained risk assessments and guidance for staff on how to manage risks associated with people’s care and support. While most of the records we saw indicated a thorough process of assessment and review, this was not always supported by the daily care notes recorded by staff on electronic handsets. For example, a person was not always repositioned or personal care provided in line with their assessed needs. Both the registered manager and regional manager were aware of the issue and had an action plan to address it.

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 provider undertook regular audits to monitor the safety of the home environment and equipment. People’s rooms and communal areas were checked daily and weekly to identify any environmental risks and actions were taken to mitigate any risks. Safety equipment was tested regularly to ensure it was in good working order, for example, fire equipment, emergency lighting, bed rails, call bells and air mattresses. There were also water temperature checks, legionella testing, and portable electrical appliance tests.

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.

People, relatives, staff and professionals all told us they felt there were enough staff and observations during the inspection assured us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. For example, we observed staff spending time with people and did not appear to be rushed. This meant people's needs were met in a timely way.

Staff were recruited safely and had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Staff had received training in a broad range of topics including specific training to enable them to meet people’s bespoke needs and ensure people received safe care.

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.

The service was visibly clean and tidy. Comments from people’s relatives included, “It always smells nice here” and “It’s always spotless”.

Staff had been trained in infection prevention and control and told us there was enough personal protective equipment (PPE) available such as gloves and aprons.

There were effective processes to prevent and control infection. Regular audits took place to oversee the cleanliness and safety of the environment, which included food hygiene, PPE, sharps handling, and waste management, for example. Cleaning schedules were followed and records showed rooms and equipment were cleaned regularly. Hand gel dispensers and PPE stations were in place around the home.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People’s medicines including controlled drugs were managed so that they received them safely. There were procedures and records in place and staff demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the processes.

Medical professionals carried out reviews of people’s medicines every 3 months or sooner if required. This meant people were not receiving medication that was not effectively meeting their needs. For example, a health professional told us, “They are not medication focused, which is refreshing for me, and they are always happy to explore alternative options where possible.”