Hays House Nursing 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The director promoted learning from when things went well and also when things did not go so well by ensuring that managers from different services could all learn collectively from good practice and practice when improvement was required.

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.

The provider did not always work with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. For example, the use of paraffin-based emollients had not been considered within risk management or care planning arrangements for any of the people who were prescribed flammable emollients.

People who are prescribed anticoagulants are at higher risk of experiencing increased bleeding when injured. The provider had not identified or assessed this risk. This meant staff did not have access to guidance on how to support people in relation to this risk.

Additional risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were identified, assessed and regularly reviewed. Care plans and risk assessments provided staff with clear guidance on how to mitigate identified risks while supporting people to remain as independent as possible. Where people's needs changed, records were updated to ensure staff had access to current information.

Health and safety systems were effective in protecting people from avoidable harm. The provider ensured a safe, clean and well-maintained environment, with regular checks undertaken to ensure equipment and utilities remained fit for purpose. Fire safety arrangements were in place and subject to routine monitoring, and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to emergency procedures and maintaining a safe environment.

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

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.

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.