Peterlee 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 69 (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.

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.

People and relatives told us they thought the service was safe, they would speak with staff if they were worried, and they felt listened to. A relative said, “I believe [person] is safe here. I've never had reason to think otherwise.” A staff member told us, “I think people are safe and receive good care here. If they didn’t, I would speak up.”

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.Staff supported people safely and equipment was available where appropriate.Risks were assessed to ensure people were safe and staff took action to mitigate any identified risks. Accident and incident analysis required improvement to ensure that robust reflection took place, and any actions could be clearly identified. Records we viewed did not always demonstrate this.

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

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. The provider carried out continual checks to ensure staff remained competent to carry out key tasks. Staff members confirmed they had opportunities for training and development. A staff member said, “I can’t fault the support I get from [registered manager]. I’ve completed plenty of training for my role and the company even paid for extra training for me.”

The provider determined staffing levels in line with people’s individual support needs. People and relatives felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Call bells were responded to promptly and appropriately.

Staff were mostly recruited in a safe way, however the recording of Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checksregarding barred list status were not consistently robust. The DBS carry out checks on criminal records and barred list status on individuals who intend to work with children and vulnerable adults. These checks help employers make safer recruiting decisions and prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults. We discussed this issue with the provider and they agreed to rectify this.

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.