The Trees

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 questiongood.At thisassessmentthe rating hasremainedgood.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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 understood their responsibilities to record and report any accidents or incidents. The registered manager implemented systems to ensure accidents and incidents were regularly analysed to identify any emerging themes or patterns to mitigate further risks and improve the care provided. Learning from events had been cascaded through the staff team and staff were informed on how risks were managed. 

One staff member told us, “We have accident and incident forms on which we record accidents and incidents as well as near misses. As a team leader these will be escalated to me first, then I must inform the manager on duty or out of hours manager.”

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.

Assessments were completed before people moved into the home. There were systems in place to facilitate safe transfers for people between care services. People’s needs were assessed using information obtained from other health and social care professionals, relevant representatives and the person themselves. Care plans were detailed and provided clear guidance to staff on how best to support the person. Staff worked closely with external professionals, such as the positive behavioural support team, to ensure people received safe care and treatment.

Professionals we contacted spoke very highly of the communication from staff at The Trees. One professional told us,“[Registered manager] and the team work closely with whatever professionals are involved with the support for the person and ensure good communication across the services they attend.[Staff] are very good at contacting other professionals to seek advice and support quickly and to pass on this information to who it needs to be shared with in a confidential manner.”

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 had safeguarding systems and processes to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and protect individuals from abuse and neglect. Comprehensive safeguarding records were maintained, documenting all incidents and the corresponding actions taken to mitigate future risks. These actions included notifying the local authority safeguarding team and updating the individual’s care plan in line with best practice. 

Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood what to do if someone reported abuse. They knew how to report concerns about abuse or neglect and were supported by clear policies and procedures. Staff knew how they could raise concerns within the service and, if needed, with other organisations such as the local authority, the police, or CQC.

People can only have their freedom restricted for care and treatment if there is a legal process in place. In care homes, this is managed through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider regularly checked and monitored these safeguards. Each person’s care plan included details about their capacity and any DoLS in place, explaining what this meant for their support. When people needed help to make decisions, staff recorded how choices were made in the person’s best interests.

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.

There were comprehensive risk assessments in place that were regularly reviewed and updated. These assessments enabled staff to understand people’s needs clearly and to deliver care in a safe and consistent manner. Care records were thorough and up to date, providing staff with the essential information required to deliver safe support.

A member of staff told us about how they access care plans and risk assessments, “Those who know people well are happy to answer any questions from new team members.[Staff]can shadow more experienced team members and time is allocated for [staff] to read through the people they are supporting’s support plans.”

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

Robust systems were in place to ensure the home and its equipment were properly maintained and serviced. Regular checks were carried out, including scheduled servicing and safety inspections such as electrical compliance testing and fire risk assessments.

The provider undertook comprehensive risk assessments of the premises and implemented measures to ensure the safety of people, staff, and visitors. Individual Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were in place for each person, detailing the specific procedures required to support their safe evacuation in the event of an emergency.

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.

The provider undertook appropriate recruitment checks before staff started working at the service to ensure the suitability of staff before they commenced employment. These included obtaining references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This helps providers make safe recruitment decisions.

Staffing levels were informed by the dependency needs of people using the service. During our assessment, staffing levels were in line with the assessed needs of the service.

Staff received regular supervision, which provided learning opportunities and professional development. Some staff had progressed into more senior roles through this. Staff told us they were supported and found the management team approachable. One staff member said, “The Trees is a lovely place to work, I have worked in various care/support work, and The Trees is honestly1of the best. All the management team are approachable and helpful.”

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.

The home and equipment were clean, and risks associated with infections were assessed and well managed. There were regular checks and audits of cleanliness and hygiene. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control, health and safety, and food hygiene.

Staff followed a number of measures to promote good infection prevention. Housekeeping staff maintained a consistent cleaning schedule of all areas of the home. We observed cleaning tasks being undertaken throughout our visit to the home.

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.

Medicine management systems were well organised and ensured people received their medicines as prescribed. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible with their medicines and were supported to develop skills in managing medicines.

Staff responsible for administering medicines received training and had their competencies checked to ensure they could administer medicines safely.

A relative of a person who regularly uses the service told us, “[Staff] did the care plan at the beginning and asked lots of questions including about medication and it was updated recently.”