Frith 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 78 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a strong and open learning culture that promoted continuous improvement and transparency. Staff understood how to recognise, report, and respond to incidents, and leaders used learning to improve systems and practice. Governance systems, including regular audits, ‘flash meetings’ and governance reviews, ensured learning was embedded and shared across teams. Leaders promoted a blame free learning culture, and staff demonstrated confidence in applying learning to improve outcomes for people. For example, following a complaint made by a person staying for respite care, processes had been changed to make sure improvements were made. These improvements were seen and no further concerns had been raised. This showed people staying on respite care were now satisfied with the care they received.

Issues around poor documentation had also led to further training and support for staff demonstrating a commitment to learning and improving in response to feedback. The registered manager had a ‘Focus of the month’ initiative to support staff in their learning. Following the concern about record keeping, this became the topic for February 2026. This had led to more person-centred and comprehensive recording which better supported people’s care and support.

The provider 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.

People had their needs assessed before they moved to the home. Staff told us they were provided with information about each person moving in, so they were able to provide appropriate and consistent support. We were also told that a full care plan was created within the first 24 hours of a person’s stay.

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 felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. One person told us, “I feel very safe here. There is always someone to call on if you need help.”

Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and told us they would always report concerns. All staff were confident any issues reported would be dealt with by managers to make sure people were protected.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that where people needed to be deprived of their liberty to keep them safe, the provider ensured a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) authorisation applications had been made. This meant people’s legal rights were fully respected.

People were involved in decisions about their care and support, and their views were considered when managing risks. Care plans reflected people’s preferences, abilities and consent, and staff used least restrictive approaches when supporting people. MCA principles were applied, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were in place where required, with conditions monitored and recorded. People and their families were involved in reviews and informed about incidents and changes in care. Further work was ongoing to ensure involvement was consistently documented across all care records.

Staff completed risk assessments to ensure people received safe care and were able to live fulfilling lives in accordance with their wishes. For example, 1 person had a risk assessment which enabled them to safely access the local community without staff support. This helped to promote their independence and wellbeing.

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

Regular checks were carried out within the home to maintain a safe environment for people, staff, and visitors. Health and safety checks, fire safety systems, equipment servicing, and environmental audits were in place. Risks were assessed by the provider, and actions were taken to reduce hazards, including regular checks of emergency lighting, hoists, and water safety. Leaders monitored the environment through audits and walkarounds.

The provider had sufficient numbers of suitably skilled staff to meet people’s needs and provide safe high-quality care. Recruitment processes included appropriate checks, and staff received training, supervision, and competency assessments. Leaders monitored staffing levels and adjusted deployment in response to increased needs, including the use of additional staff at higher-risk times such as mealtimes.

Staff felt there were usually enough staff on duty. One member of staff said, “We all work as a team. We have time to spend with people, and we do activities every day. There’s enough staff.” During our visits we noted staff did not appear rushed and spent time socialising with people as well as meeting their physical needs.

The provider had effective infection prevention and control systems. People and visitors said they were happy with cleanliness within the home.

Staff followed guidance on hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment and isolation procedures when required. Infection risks were monitored through audits, and outbreaks were managed in line with national guidance, including liaison with health protection teams. Care plans were updated to reflect individual infection risks, and staff acted promptly to seek medical advice when people became unwell.

Leaders continued to reinforce good practice and monitoring to ensure consistency across the service. We saw that good infection control practices were discussed at staff meetings to promote good practice.

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.

People received their medicines safely in the way prescribed for them. People could look after their own medicines if it was safe for them to do this. When medicines were prescribed ‘when required’ there were person-centred protocols or care plans in place to guide staff when these might be needed.

The provider had suitable arrangements for ordering, storage and disposal, including for medicines needing cold storage and those requiring extra security. Temperature monitoring was carried out by appropriate senior staff to ensure medicines would be safe and effective.

Staff had assessed risks for people using higher-risk medicines such as anticoagulant ‘blood thinners’ and flammable topical preparations.

Staff had regular training and competency checks to make sure they were giving medicines safely. Any errors or incidents were investigated and reported, so that systems could be put in place to prevent them recurring. The management team carried out regular medicines audits which identified any improvements that were needed, and actions were recorded.