Hunters Lodge 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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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 provider had a robust accident and incident policy and procedure in place. Staff received adequate training and were able to describe the action they would take in the event of an accident or incident. Managers carried out an analysis of accidents and incidents to determine if there were any themes and trends or learning required. Action was taken to reduce the likelihood of incidents reoccurring. Staff told us, and documents demonstrated learning was shared throughout the team in a timely way. Relatives told us they were informed when safety events occurred and were confident in the actions of the service to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence. For example, 1 relative explained their family member was a high risk of falls and said, “They offered (person) a room closer to the communal area of the home, this helped as (person) didn’t have to walk so far or use the lift”.

The service 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 supported people and their relatives to be fully involved when moving between services, completed comprehensive initial assessments including people’s histories and what mattered to them. This enabled staff to provide person led care and support. A relative told us, “(person) had a very good transition from hospital, (person) was on respite to start with, and staff really went above and beyond to make (person) feel at home”.

The service 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.

People appeared relaxed and happy, People told us they felt safe, and relatives told us people received safe and consistent care. For example, a person said, “I feel very safe, a staff member saved my life …. The staff are all very good”.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service was meeting the legal requirements as DoLS had been appropriately applied for. If restrictions were in place for people’s safety, this had been undertaken in line with the MCA.

The service 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.

Records showed and people’s relatives told us they were fully involved in the development of their care plans including how they would be supported to manage any risks. Risk assessments were individualised and provided robust information for staff about how to reduce risks for people without restricting their rights and independence.

Risks to people were monitored, staff were informed of any changes during regular meetings and people’s risks were included within handover documentation. This ensured all staff were aware of actions in place to reduce risk to people. Staff knew people as individuals and understood what action was needed to keep people safe. We saw people’s risk assessments were followed. For example, some people had chair sensors in line with their risk assessments to reduce their risk of falling.

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

The service had environmental risk assessments in place and completed regular audits. Any shortfalls identified were documented and an action plan was in place to ensure prompt action was taken to address the shortfall and reduce the risk to people.

The service 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 service had strong recruitment checks, in line with legal requirements, to make sure only suitable staff were employed. We observed staff had the knowledge and skills to support people safely, in line with their assessed needs. People’s relatives provided positive feedback, for example a relative told us, “Staff are very good, (person) receives person centred, consistent care”.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was clean and free from aroma. Staff had access to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and wore this appropriately. People, relatives and professionals all provided positive feedback in relation to the cleanliness of the home.

The service 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.

Some people’s variable dose medication did not have clear instructions for staff; however, staff demonstrated a clear understanding of what dose would need to be administered. The deputy manager was working with the person’s doctor, to ensure the instructions for staff were clear and reduced the risk of harm.

Staff safely supported people with their medicines and kept clear records. Staff knew how to report medicine concerns and followed guidance. Creams were used with clear body maps to ensure people had creams administered safely. Staff were trained, competent, and regularly assessed to make sure best practice was followed and people received their medicines safely.