Camellia House

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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.

There was clear communication between staff to share any changes or learning. These were shared through handovers and staff meetings.

People told us they felt confident they would be treated with compassion and understanding, and would not be blamed, or treated negatively if they raised concerns.

People living at the service knew who to raise concerns with. One person told us how supportive and approachable the manager was with any concerns they had, both within the home and externally.

There had been no accidents or incidents for a prolonged period, however staff told us how they would report concerns and had confidence in leaders to deal with these appropriately.

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.

The provider had a good working relationship with health professionals and shared information with them when required. Communication logs from professionals were in people’s care plans so that any appointments or changes could be shared with the wider care team.

Pre-assessments were completed prior to people moving into Camellia House and formed the basis of their care plan. These contained useful information such as support needs, medical history and people’s likes and dislikes.

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They protected people’s right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

There had not been any reportable safeguarding events for a prolonged period. However, staff knew who they would report any concerns to both internally and externally. Safeguarding systems and processes were in place to identify, report and investigate concerns. Staff had received safeguarding training, and the provider had a safeguarding policy in place.

People told us they felt safe and were able to speak out if they thought they or others were at risk.

People’s capacity to make their own decisions had been considered and mental capacity assessments had been completed. However, mental capacity assessments contained limited information about how people had been supported to understand the decision to be made. The Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA), gives others the legal right to take certain steps relevant to people’s care and treatment in their best interests; where a person lacks capacity to decide or consent for themselves. This was important because capacity assessment did not demonstrate how people had been fully involved in the decision. We found mental capacity assessments to be in place for multiple decisions, however they did not follow the principles of the MCA (2005), by completing assessments that were time specific.

Where a person was deemed to lack capacity around care, there was not a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place. This meant that there was a risk of people being unlawfully deprived of their liberty. This was raised with the provider at the time of the assessment who told us that they would review mental capacity assessments. They provided evidence of having submitted the DoLS application following our assessment. The provider shared evidence showing that appropriate documentation had been completed and that a referral had been made.

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 were supported to be meaningfully involved in managing risks to their safety and wellbeing, with approaches tailored to their individual needs, preferences, and levels of understanding.

Risk assessments were completed and reflected people’s needs and changing circumstances. For example, one person sometimes chose not to follow dietary recommendations. Care plans included this risk and that the person had capacity to make this decision. The care plan included details of signs and symptoms to look out for, such as changes in blood sugar levels and who to escalate concerns to if required.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We found that some free-standing wardrobes were not secured to the wall. This presented a risk to people's heath as unsecured wardrobes could fall onto people and cause them harm. We also found that window restrictors were not in place, meaning people were at risk of falling from windows at height. We raised this with the registered manager who took action and provided evidence of window restrictors being installed and furniture being fixed to walls.

People were supported to personalise their spaces, which contributed to a sense of familiarity and comfort.

Environmental checks were completed regularly. These included gas and electricity checks which helped to ensure people remained safe.

People had personal evacuation plans in place to support staff and the emergency services in the event of a fire or emergency. These reflected people’s support needs in the event of a fire. Staff had been trained in how to respond in the event of a fire and knew how to support people.

People did not always feel there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

During our assessment, there were enough staff to provide consistent and familiar support which is important to people who lived at Camellia House. However, we received feedback that more staff would be of benefit. When we asked if there was sufficient staffing, one person told us, “Not all the time, I feel there should be a minimum of 2 staff on, especially at certain times of the day.” This meant that if there was only one staff member working, residents may have to wait for support longer than necessary, although we found no evidence of this during the assessment.

We found enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults were in place. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helped employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Staff told us they received an induction when joining the team at Camellia House, but that it was basic. Staff received supervision; however, these were not regularly completed.

Staff had completed training in subjects which included diabetes, dignity in care, medication, epilepsy awareness and mental capacity. This training was in line with the needs of the people who used the service.

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 service maintained effective infection prevention and control practices that were responsive to the needs of people living at the service. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of maintaining hygiene standards while supporting individuals in a way that respected their dignity and personal routines.

Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) when required, to prevent the spread of infections. Staff had a good understanding of Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) and told us they had adequate supplies of PPE. Infection control training was provided and up to date at the time of the assessment.

Staff understood the importance of food safety, including hygiene, when preparing or handling food. They followed required standards and practice.

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.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the impacts of medicines and worked closely with healthcare professionals to ensure prescribing was appropriate, regularly reviewed, and tailored to individual needs.

Medicines were stored securely, administered safely, and monitored for effectiveness and side effects.

Some people were prescribed PRN (as required) medicines. We saw appropriate and person-centred protocols in place for these. We observed a staff member responsible for medicines speak with people and ask if they required their PRN medicines in an appropriate manner, ensuring those who had capacity to make such decisions remained in control.

At the time of the assessment, people were not prescribed controlled drugs which require additional storage precautions, however there was a lockable safe in place should they be required.

A medicines policy was in place, as was a system for ordering and returning medicines.