Silverpoint Court Residential 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 Inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. During this assessment we found various concerns including the management of people’s health, wellbeing, and safeguarding which resulted in a breach of safe care and treatment.

This service scored 56 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff were aware they needed to report incidents. Staff told us they did not always feel that confidentiality was maintained, which made reporting difficult. The provider sought feedback from people, staff and relatives via surveys. The provider had audits in place and quality assurance processes in place relating to infection prevention and control, fire safety and a home improvement plan which help to identify improvements needed to ensure the safety of the service. However, they did not identify some of the concerns we found that impacted directly on people. For example, audits had not identified where information was lacking in care plans to mitigate risk, and they had not identified their failure to report notifiable incidents.

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.

Systems and processes were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm; however, these were not robust, and we found some inconsistencies in people’s care plans and risk assessments which meant risks to people’s safety could be compromised. For example, there had not always been appropriate oversight from management to ensure that people were always kept safe.

We found the provider had not consistently submitted statutory notifications. These are notifications the provider must make to the CQC for certain issues such as safeguarding concerns or serious injuries. The provider has since submitted these notifications retrospectively.

Staff had appropriate training in safeguarding people from abuse. Staff were aware of the signs of abuse and how to report concerns. A staff member told us, “I would report concerns to my seniors/managers and externally I can report to CQC or the police.” Staff told us they would like to receive more training in specific areas such as diabetes management and dementia care. One staff member said, “I would like more in-depth dementia training because people’s dementia is progressing.” They told us the provider is looking into this for staff.

During our on-site assessment, we observed people appeared to be comfortable living at the home, and in the company of the staff supporting them. We observed kind interactions between staff and people.

Although there had been minimal impact on people using the service, people’s records were not always consistent. People’s care plans and risk assessments did not consistently contain sufficient information to guide staff about the required actions to mitigate potential risks. Examples of this include lack of information about a person’s medical conditions and how to safely support someone with their catheter. This could put the person at risk of a decline in their health and wellbeing, Improvements were required to ensure that completed care plans and risk assessments included how risks to people were to be reduced. This placed people at risk of harm. This was a breach of safe care and treatment.

People had up to date personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPS) which contained relevant information about people’s needs and support required to safely support them to evacuate from Silverpoint Court in the event of a fire or an emergency.

People did not raise any issues about the safety of the physical environment. The home was currently undergoing various renovations. There had been continuous issues with the lift, which the provider was addressing and had systems in place to manage the stairs if the lift was out of action. We observed some items being stored in the garden awaiting removal due to the renovations. The provider confirmed that a skip had recently been removed and a new one would be coming. A home improvement plan was also in place which identified planned environmental improvements.

The provider had relevant safety certificates in place to routinely monitor and maintain the safety of the premises and equipment in the service.

Staff told us they thought staffing levels were insufficient to be able to provide people with the care and support they needed. One staff member told us, “We don’t always get our breaks because there isn’t enough staff.” A relative told us, “The care home staffing levels could be improved so they are not under so much pressure.” The provider had an action plan in place following a recent staff survey. This included feedback from staff regarding their concerns over staffing levels. The provider confirmed there had been a recent increase in recruitment and new staff onboarding, this included an activities team. The provider told us they increased staffing levels, and no longer use agency staff.

Appropriate checks were carried out prior to staff starting employment, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and references. DBS provides information relating to cautions and convictions that are held on the Police National Database. The information received during recruitment checks helps employers to make safer recruitment decisions. Staff received formal support through supervision and appraisals.

People were supported by staff who had been given appropriate training and induction. Staff were passionate about the people using the service. One staff member told us, “I believe our best trait is the relationship between staff and residents.” Another staff member told us, “It feels like home here.”

The environment was clean to a good standard when we were onsite, though showing signs of age. The provider was in the process of completing renovations including repainting and full refurbishment of the kitchen.

We observed the domestic team going around with their trolley and equipment. The provider had systems in place to monitor cleanliness of the home and all staff received infection prevention control training. Staff were practicing good IPC in their tasks. We observed correct handwashing and use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

People received their medication from trained staff. Records showed that staff were up to date with their medication training. Staff understood the providers systems for managing medication and told us their competency with medications had been assessed. Staff had good understanding of actions to take if a person declined their medication.

Medications were stored appropriately and securely when not in use. The provider had appropriate protocols in place for ‘as required’ medication. The provider had good oversight of medicines through effective audits. Actions identified from the audit were recorded and actioned.

The medication room was clean, tidy and organised. The temperature of the medicine’s storage area was monitored daily.