St Cecilia's - Care Home with Nursing Physical Disabilities

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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.

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.

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 provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

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 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.

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.

Medicines management was not always safe.

People told us they received their medicines when required and as prescribed. One person said, “Always at the same time each day, I am sure they [staff] are good.” A second person commented, “No problems at all.”

Despite the positive comments, we found that the management of medicines was not always safe. During our assessment we observed the administration of medicines. Medicines administration records were documented on an electronic medicines management system which staff updated. We noted some discrepancies on the medicines count. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us that the implementation of the electronic system had encountered some problems with medicine counts. This meant that medicines remaining did not always match what had been administered. In order to address the issue, the provider had systems in place to mitigate any risks and had implemented an action plan to ensure the safe management of medicines. During the medicines round we observed that the medicines trolley was left unattended and unlocked while staff administered medicines. It was not properly secured to the wall. We drew these concerns to the registered manager’s attention. They took immediate action to address the issue. We noted a medicines fridge was not working and staff were unable to calibrate it, which could compromise medicines safety. We spoke with the registered manager who showed us that a new medicines fridge had been ordered. Following our on-site assessment, we saw that a new medicines fridge was in place. We were assured that the registered manager and provider had taken appropriate action to address these issues and an action plan was in place to ensure the safe administration and management of medicines.