Poplars 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

Since our last inspection the safety of the service had improved, and the service was safe. People’s care plans and risk assessments had improved and now reflected people’s needs. Staff had the information they needed about people’s health and well-being risks to support people safely. People were protected from the risk of abuse by staff who knew how to identify and report concerns. The registered manager investigated concerns and took action if required. Where people’s liberty was restricted to keep them safe appropriate legal authorisations were in place. There was enough staff to provide people with safe support. Staff had the training they needed to undertake their role. Staff were well supported in their role. People were protected from risks from the environment. For example, gas and electric systems had been checked to ensure they were safe. The decoration and appearance of the service had improved since the last inspection and the service was clean.

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.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People felt comfortable and safe with staff. People spoke to staff freely and expressed themselves. They were comfortable asking staff for help and staff responded to their request promptly and with kindness.

People told us they felt safe at the service. Comments included, “The staff are here to help me and that makes me feel safe”. Relatives also felt people were safe. One relative told us, “Yes, [they are] safe there otherwise I wouldn’t let [them] stay.”

Staff knew what to do if they were concerned about abuse. They knew where to find the relevant policies and felt confident and able to report any worries. Staff told us they had received training in safeguarding and regular refresher training. Staff were able to identify different types of abuse and circumstances which amount to a safeguarding. One staff member said, “I feel very confident [about raising concerns] because I want people to feel safe, comfortable, and respected. And I would feel listened to and taken seriously.” The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities to act when incidents occurred, they had appropriately raised issues with the local authority. Staff were confident the registered manager would act if there were concerns. Staff knew how to whistleblow if they had concerns about practice at the service. Whistle blowing is a process that allows staff to raise concerns about a service while protecting their anonymity.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. There were processes in place to reduce the risks to people. When incidents occurred, these were recorded and reported as appropriate. The registered manager ensured the local authority and CQC were informed about concerns. Concerns were investigated and action taken to reduce risks. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. People can only be deprived of their liberty when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people were deprived of their liberty appropriate legal authorisations were in place and reviewed as necessary.

Staff supported people to reduce the risk of harm. We observed staff supporting people in a safe way. People had their mobility aids and staff supported them to use them safely. We saw staff support one person to transfer from the armchair to their wheelchair. They communicated with the person about what they were doing and they followed safe moving and handling procedures. They checked the wheelchair and applied the brakes as required. Some people were at risk of developing pressure sores. They had pressure relieving equipment in place to reduce this risk. People’s pressure mattresses were set correctly according to the person’s weight to ensure they were working correctly.

Staff knew people well and knew how to support people. Feedback from people and their family was positive. One relative said, “[Staff] look after [my relative] very well, they are very good.” Staff recognised that some people who lived with dementia needed support with their mental health needs and emotional wellbeing. One person told us, “The staff have been lovely they have helped me when I have become upset”.

At the last inspection we identified a breach of Regulation 12 (safe care and treatment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had failed to ensure peoples care records were accurate and complete which placed people at risk of harm. At this assessment enough improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 12. At the last inspection care records not always accurate or completed. At this inspection we identified improvement. Care plans included the information they needed to enable staff to know how to support people. For example, where people were supported to move using a hoist there was guidance for staff on how to support the person safely. Guidance included specifying which equipment to use to ensure staff knew which sling and hoist had been assessed as safe to use for each person. Care plans were regularly updated and accurately reflected people’s assessed needs.

Staff knew about people’s health and wellbeing risks and knew how to keep people safe. One staff told us, “Our risk assessments look at various areas and these are regularly reviewed. Staff are made aware of any changes [in someone’s needs] during handovers, and what actions to take.” Staff knew how to support people and were confident when they explained this to us. For example, staff told us how they reduced the risk of people developing pressure sores by supporting people to move and through using equipment. Some people were cared for in bed. Checks were made by staff in ensure they were supported safely and in line with the care plan. Kitchen staff were aware of people’s dietary needs, for instance who required a soft or pureed meal.

There were systems and process in place to ensure people were protected from risks from the environment. For example, appropriate testing was carried out to ensure gas and electric were safe. There was regular water flushing undertaken to reduce the risk of legionella through stagnant water collection. Call bells were checked to ensure they were in working order.

The environment was safe. The home smelled fresh and free from unpleasant odour. At the last inspection areas of the service appeared to be in need of updating and redecoration. This had been addressed and we found the home was in good state of repair. There was hand sanitising facility available at the entrance of the home. The radiators were covered except in one room, we raised this with the registered manager, and this was sorted out immediately. The windows on the top floors had restrictors to safeguard people from jumping out. The stairway on the ground floor had a gate to reduce the chances of people using the stairs unsupervised where this was not safe. Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) when they attended to people’s personal care needs and when handling food.

People had the right equipment to support them to live safely and as independently as possible. People had their own equipment which was not shared. For example, people had their own hoist slings. Sharing these items could increase the risk of transferring infection. One staff member said, “Each piece of equipment is numbered for that person, so we don’t use their equipment for someone else.” The service had an effective maintenance team, and any concerns were reported and fixed in a timely manner. One staff member said, “When you report any issue to maintenance, it’s sorted straight away.”

Feedback about the environment was positive. Some people did say they found the building could be hot at times, but they told us staff would open a window when asked. One relative said, “I have only been here a short time, but it has been lovely.” Relatives told us the service was kept in a good state of repair. One relative told us, “There are always electricians/workers there to help with televisions or any problems. There is always a cleaner around and cleaners checking the rooms.”

Staff told us there was enough staff and they had time to provide the care people needed. One staff said, “We have enough staff, and this is because management is understanding of our role and the needs of the residents here. Sickness is covered immediately, and we don’t lack in staff at all.” Nursing and care staff were supported by domestic staff, laundry staff, kitchen staff, activities co-ordinators and maintenance staff. One staff said, “There are two of us now, two activity assistants, which is very nice, so someone is here every day including weekends.” Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and felt fully supported by the management team. The registered manager told us, “I am satisfied this is the right staffing level because I observe tasks are being completed and no concern has arisen because of the staffing levels.”

The registered manager used a dependency tool to support them to calculate the number of staff required within each area. This was then refined through observation and an ongoing review of risk to ensure there was enough staff to support people well. Staff had undertaken the training they needed to provide support to people. This included mandatory training such as safeguarding and mental capacity and specialist training such as supporting people with diabetic needs and learning disabilities. Staff had completed competency assessments in manual handling and medicines to ensure their practice had been assessed as safe. Staff were supported appropriately through regular supervision sessions and appraisal. Appropriate checks were undertaken to ensure staff were recruited safety. For example, Disclosure and Barring service (DBS) checks were undertaken. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Checks were also made to ensure nurses were appropriately registered and underwent revalidation to maintain their registration.

Staff were on hand throughout the day to attend to people when they needed it. We saw both qualified nurses and care staff responding appropriately to people’s needs. Staff did not seem rushed, and the atmosphere was calm and relaxed. Staff had time to stop and chat with people. People were not left on their own in the communal areas for lengthy periods. Call bells were answered quickly. We saw staff visit people in their rooms to check on them. Staff showed they understood their job roles and carried them out with confidence and commitment.

People and their relatives told us there was enough staff to provide support to people. Comments included, “The staff come quickly, it goes to the phones and whoever is nearest comes.” and, “I can press my buzzer and they come and help me as I can’t move around by myself”. One relative said, “They [staff] are all lovely. Not only when I am here, it’s all the time. I have heard them with other [people], and they are lovely with everyone.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.