Cornerways

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

The service was clean well equipped, well furnished, well maintained and fit for purpose. Staff assessed and managed risks to client 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 administer, record and store medicines. The service managed client safety incidents well.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

There had been one incident in the past 12 months. It involved a member of the public accessing the building, since then the access door that had been used was locked.

All staff knew what incidents to report and how to report them.

Staff reported all incidents that they should report.

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

Staff received feedback from investigation 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.

Staff involved clients in care planning and risk assessment. We saw this in the 6 care records we reviewed.

There had been 0 incidents of restraint in the past year.

Staff communicated with clients so that they understood their care and treatment, including finding effective ways to communicate with clients with communication difficulties.

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

Staff did regular risk assessments of the care environment.

Staff had mitigated the risks of ligature anchor points adequately.

The service did not comply with its national guidance on mixed sex accommodation. Men and Women were housed together (in single rooms) and had to cross bedrooms belonging to the other sex to get to the bathroom.

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

Clinic rooms were fully equipped with accessible resuscitation equipment and emergency drugs that staff checked regularly.

The service staffing level comprises 9.4 Whole time equivalent. Sickness rates were 4.6% overall. Managers had calculated the number and grade 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.

When necessary, managers deployed agency and bank staff to maintain safe staffing levels.

When agency and bank staff were used, those staff received an induction and were familiar with the service.

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 activities.

There was adequate medical cover day and night and a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency.

Staff had received and were up to date with appropriate mandatory training. However, completion rates were low for COSH (73%), moving and handling theory (55%), nutrition and fluids/hydration (9%), person centred care (73%), record keeping and reporting (18%), and safeguarding children (36%). The training was appropriate for the patient group using the service.

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. However, we noticed that the medicines fridge was not locked. Staff purchased a lock for the fridge shortly after inspection.

Staff reviewed the effects of medication on patients’ physical health regularly and in line with NICE guidance.