OSJCT Whitefriars

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.

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 told us they felt safe living at the home. A person told us, “I feel safe here.” Staff had all received training so were able to identify abuse and were clear on the action to take to report abuse to their line manager. One member of staff told us, “If I had any concerns I would go to my line manager and higher if I needed to.” The manager and staff had worked collaboratively with the local safeguarding authority, raising concerns appropriately and taking their advice and guidance on how to keep people safe.

Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about where they lived the manager and ensured they had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in place to protect their rights.

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.

Risks to people were identified and actions to mitigate risk were recorded in people’s care plans. For example, where people were at risk of falling their care plans recorded what equipment they needed to help them move safely around the home. Staff were given a handover when they came on shift to ensure they were up to date with people’s needs and the equipment needed to keep people safe.

The registered manager reviewed risks monthly to ensure that all action to keep people safe was being taken. For example, they reviewed people’s weights to ensure anyone at risk of malnutrition was identified and skin conditions to reduce the risk of people developing pressure wounds.

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 ensured they recruited staff safely. All new members of staff had to provide a copy of their full employment history and undertake a recruitment interview. If they had any relevant qualifications their certificates were verified.

New staff also had to provide proof of identify and complete a disclosure and barring check. This is a check to see if they had any criminal convictions. References were gathered and included staff’s previous roles working with vulnerable people if relevant.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. One person told us, “Staff are friendly and there is enough of them around.” Staff were deployed into different areas of the home, so it was clear which people they were meant to support. Staff had received training in the skills they needed to keep people safe while receiving care, including training in supporting people with dementia.

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.

The provider 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.

The provider had ensured medicines were safely managed and stored. Systems were in place to monitor and re-order medicines. This ensured people had access to their medicines when needed. Staff kept accurate records of which medicines were prescribed for each person and when they had been administered. People told us they received their medicines on time. A person said, “Staff bring me my pills twice a day, they are always on time.” Another relative praised staff for managing their loved one’s medicines. They said, “Staff have been brilliant with keeping on top of medicine changes.” Where medicine had specific instructions on when and how to be taken, staff ensured they were followed. For example, if a medicine needed to be taken on an empty stomach.