Allington House - Bournemouth

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

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating changed to good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The house was safe, clean, well equipped, well furnished, well maintained and fit for purpose. Staff assessed and managed risks to clients and themselves well. Staff understood how to protect clients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines. The service managed client safety incidents well.

We have not awarded this service a score for Safe.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Safe.

All staff knew what incidents to report and how to report them. We spoke with staff who were knowledgeable about how to report incidents

Staff reported all incidents that they should report.

Staff understood the duty of candour. They were open and transparent, and gave clients and families a full explanation if and when things went wrong.

Staff received feedback from investigations of incidents, both internal and external to the service. Staff met to discuss that feedback.

Staff were debriefed and received support after a serious incident.

The service’s referral and admission processes ensured that all essential information about the client was received to determine if the client’s needs could safely be met.

Staff involved all the necessary healthcare and social care services to ensure clients had continuity of safe care, both within the service and post-discharge.

Staff were trained in safeguarding, knew how to make a safeguarding alert, and did that when appropriate.

Staff could give examples of how to protect clients from harassment and discrimination, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Staff knew how to identify adults and children at risk of, or suffering, significant harm. This included working in partnership with other agencies.

Staff followed safe procedures for children visiting the service. Children were not normally permitted to visit the service but there were specific rooms they could use if a visit was required.

We reviewed four care records during this inspection and saw that staff involved clients in care planning and risk assessment.

Staff enabled clients to give feedback on the service they received for example, via community meetings.

Staff did regular risk assessments of the care environment. Including legionella checks and fire checks. This was checked annually.

Staff had easy access to alarms and clients had easy access to staff call systems.

The house had a defibrillator that was checked regularly

The service had 11.11 Whole time equivalent (WTE) staff, with 12% vacancy rate and a 26% turnover. Managers had calculated the number of staff required. The number of staff matched this number on all shifts. The manager could adjust staffing levels daily to take account of case mix.

Staffing levels allowed clients to have regular one-to-one time with their named staff member.

Staff shortages rarely resulted in staff cancelling escorted leave or ward activities.

Staff had received and were up to date with appropriate mandatory training.

Staff maintained equipment well and kept it clean. Any ‘clean’ stickers were visible and in date.

All areas were clean, had good furnishings and were well-maintained.

Cleaning records were up to date and demonstrated that the areas were cleaned regularly.

Staff adhered to infection control principles, including handwashing.

Staff followed good practice in medicines management (that is, transport, storage, dispensing, administration, medicines reconciliation, recording, disposal, use of covert medication) and did it in line with national guidance.

Staff reviewed the effects of medication on clients’ physical health regularly and in line with NICE guidance, especially when the client was prescribed a high dose of antipsychotic medication.