Deepdene House

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.

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

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 told us they felt safe. They trusted the staff who supported them. They knew how to raise concerns. A person said, "Oh yes, I would tell the staff or manager if I wasn't being treated properly. They will help me."

The manager and staff had received training in safeguarding of adults. They were knowledgeable about the risks to people they supported. They understood their responsibilities in respect of reporting and recording any suspicions or concerns about potential harm or abuse.

We observed staff engaging with people in a respectful way. They offered choices and ensured people were happy with these.

Prior to our assessment we received concerns from a Local Authority regarding people's monies where these were looked after by the home. At this inspection we found the provider had put more robust procedures in place to ensure people's personal monies were managed safely. We checked people's financial records, along with monies looked after, We found these corresponded. 2 signatures were required for each withdrawal from peoples funds. The provider and manager had undertaken regular audits of people's monies and associated records.

The provider had reported any recent safeguarding concerns to the Local Authority and the CQC as required. The Providers safeguarding policies and procedures reflected current best practice.

People told us they had been involved in agreeing their care plans and risk assessments. One person said, "I need help with getting up and moving around now. I don't like it but the staff know what to do and they have asked me how they can help."

The manager and staff were familiar with people's care and support needs and understood the importance of ensuring they were fully involved in agreeing and reviewing their care plans and risk assessments. Staff understood the importance of monitoring people for any changes in mood, behaviour, communication and physical demeanour. A staff member said. "Most people here are long term. Even so we need to look out for signs of relapse or other changes as people get older. Staff know people well so will always report even small changes."

At the time of our inspection, the manager was reviewing people's care plans and risk assessments. We found that for some people, whose plans and assessments had not yet been reviewed, their risk management plans did not always reflect actions required to minimise known risk. However, we found guidance on managing these risks was available in easily accessible formats on the notice board in the staff office. Staff we spoke with were aware of this guidance. However, we spoke with the manager about this and they advised they would prioritise ensuring the information was included in people's care records. Steps were taken during the inspection process to update risk management plans.

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

People told us they were satisfied with the care and support they received from staff. They confirmed there were enough staff available to meet their needs. During our inspection we saw sufficient staff were rostered to support people to go out if they wished to, with other staff remaining at the home for those who needed support.

The majority of staff had worked at the home for some time and they told us there were enough staff rostered on shifts to ensure people received the support they required. The manager, administrator, maintenance person and chef also supported people where required. Th administrator told us they particularly enjoyed supporting people to go on day trips and community based activities.

At the time of our inspection, the manager was reviewing people's care plans and risk assessments. We found that for some people, whose plans and assessments had not yet been reviewed, their risk management plans did not always reflect actions required to minimise known risk. However, we found guidance on managing these risks was available in easily accessible formats on the notice board in the staff office. Staff we spoke with were aware of this guidance. However, we spoke with the manager about this and they advised they would prioritise ensuring the information was included in people's care records.Steps were taken during the inspection process to update risk management plans.

The home's rotas showed there were sufficient staff deployed at all times, including waking night staff. Additional staff were rostered on shift if required for planned activities and outings. The manager told us there were enough to cover absence, minimising the need for agency staff.

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.