Magnolia Court

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection, 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.

Staff told us they felt confident to speak up and were assured that any concerns raised would be listened to and appropriately investigated. One staff member described how they would follow safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures if they felt a concern had not been adequately addressed.

People told us they felt listened to by staff and the management team and were confident that any concerns would be taken seriously. One person said, " Staff and the registered manager listen to and investigate concerns that I have."

The provider had appropriate systems and policies in place for the management of accidents, incidents and complaints. Records showed there had been no complaints received in the 12 months prior to the inspection. Feedback from people and a review of records confirmed people were satisfied with the care and support they received, and there were no concerns regarding the quality of care provided at Magnolia Court.

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's needs were assessed before they moved into the service to ensure Magnolia Court was able to provide safe and effective care that met their individual health and social care needs. People had lived at the service for a number of years and received consistent support from staff who understood their needs and preferences well.

People, and those important to them, were involved in the development and regular review of their care plans and risk assessments. Care records contained detailed and person-centred information to guide staff in providing safe, responsive and individualised care. Records demonstrated people's care needs, preferences and support requirements were clearly documented, helping to ensure continuity of care and reducing the need for people to repeat information if they moved between services.

Staff told us there was effective communication between the service and external healthcare and social care professionals. This supported joined-up care and positive outcomes for people. Staff described working collaboratively with a range of external agencies to ensure people's needs were met in a timely way.

The registered manager told us they maintained strong partnerships with healthcare and social care professionals, including GPs, psychiatrists, podiatrists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, dentists, opticians, social workers, pharmacies, advocates and the local authority.

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 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 the service was working in accordance with the MCA - people had DoLS in place as required.

The records we reviewed supported that best interest process had been followed in line with MCA guidance. This meant people were being supported in a way in line with their own wishes and preferences.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and understood how to protect people from harm. In relation to safeguarding people, a staff member said, “I follow care plans and risk assessments. I observe for signs of harm, challenge poor practice, and report and record any safeguarding concern immediately.

One person said, “I feel very safe from any abuse in my home.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People attended key working sessions with staff on regular basis, to ensure their care and support needs were continually met. In these meetings, people were informed about risks and how staff would work with them to keep them safe.

Risk assessments were person centred and reviewed regularly or as people’s needs changed.

Staff had easy access to people's care plans and risk assessments. They had time to review these before they supported people with care. Additionally, staff had worked with people for a long time and knew them well.

Records included information relating to food and fluid intake, activities, emotional wellbeing, their support needs and other aspects of daily living. This enabled staff and managers to monitor trends, identify emerging risks and take timely action to ensure people continued to receive safe, personalised care and support.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment; however, improvement was required to ensure all systems were in good repair and working safely.

Records showed that water outlet temperature monitoring had identified temperatures outside the expected range, which could increase the risk of bacterial growth if not appropriately managed. This put people at the avoidable risk of catching a water-based infection. We raised this concern with the registered manager. The registered manager explained the engineers had advised additional flushing of relevant outlets to mitigate the risk, which the service was adhering to. The registered manager said the situation would be monitored and they would raise a non-compliance report with the engineers if the temperature felt outside of the “safe legal limits.”

The environment was clean, tidy and well maintained. During our site visit, there were no unpleasant odours, and flooring throughout the service was in good condition. Both flats were clean, organised and provided people with a comfortable place to live.

Although some areas of the décor appeared tired and would benefit from refurbishment, the provider had recognised this and had scheduled improvement works. Kitchens and bathrooms within both flats had already been refurbished. Bathrooms had been adapted and personalised to support people's assessed needs and promote their independence.

People's living spaces were personalised to reflect their individual preferences and interests. The service also had accessible outdoor space for people to enjoy, and improvement works were underway to further enhance this area.

Environmental risks were appropriately managed. Window restrictors were fitted appropriately to reduce the risk of avoidable harm.

Records showed fire risk assessments were completed and actions arising from these were addressed, helping to ensure the environment remained safe for people, staff and visitors.

People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place, to inform staff how to safely evacuate people from their homes in the event of an emergency. Staff had received health and safety training and understood how to keep people safe.

The provider took steps to ensure recruitment was safe.

The recruitment files we reviewed did not contain staff’s full employment histories. We raised this concern with the registered manger who quickly gathered the missing information and updated the recruitment files.Recruitment processes in place to support employment was safe. Staff had references from previous employers and had provided photographic identification prior to their employment.

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. The service ensured staff had DBS checks in place.

Staff told us they had received an induction at the beginning of their employment, and records we reviewed supported this. Staff told us they received ongoing supervisions and spot checks. They also received all the training relevant to help them support people in line with their care and support needs.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff had been trained in infection prevention and control and understood their roles and responsibilities in ensuring the environment was safe. Staff supported people with keeping their environment clean and tidy, and supported them to be involved in the routine. The kitchens were newly refurbished, clean and tidy. The service had a recent food hygiene rating of 5 which showed they were aware of how to maintain a good environment.

At the site visit, we saw all staff supporting people with care wore personal protective equipment (PPE). People told us staff always supported with PPE as necessary. One person said, “The hand washing policy is carried out by staff before and after providing support.”

The registered manager said, “We maintain a stock inventory and anticipate demand to prevent shortages. PPE was stored in a clean and safe condition. Expiry dates are also monitored.”

The service had monthly audits in place which ensured all infection control measures were in place.

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.

The service had a medicines audit checklist, where managers would record stock of medicines and supplements. There was evidence of medicines stock rotation. There was appropriate stock in place. All medicines were correctly labelled. PRN (as required) protocols were being followed, medicines were obtained on time and were clearly labelled by the pharmacist.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s medicines support needs. They had received training in how to support people with their medicines and were involved with regular competency checks to ensure they remained competent and able to support people safely.

Care plans and risk assessments clearly stated how staff should support people with their medicines. One person said, “I receive my medication every day. [The support is] timely and accurate. I am always asked if I am ready for my medicine. I will inform staff if I’m ready or not.”