Bath MIND - 82 Lower Oldfield Park

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 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.

Incidents, accidents and near misses were recorded with clear details of what had happened, including what people were doing in the lead up to the incident, for example people’s general mood or whether they were interacting with other people. This helped staff identify situations which could escalate people’s anxieties. Staff took a pro-active approach to prevent situations escalating where possible and minimise distress for people.

Incidents were reviewed by the management team to ensure actions were taken to reduce the risk of a repeated incident. A ‘lessons learnt’ report was completed for each incident, with actions including changes to support plans, staff debrief sessions and input from the multi-disciplinary health and social care team. Staff told us learning from incidents was shared with them and gave them clear information on any changes to the way they needed to support people.

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 told us the service worked well with health and social care services they were using. One person told us, “I am happy living here but I’m looking to move to more independent living. Staff help me speak with my care co-ordinator and social worker.” People’s health conditions were documented, and they were supported to access services from a range of professionals including specialist nurses and occupational therapists.

People had been supported to develop hospital passports, to ensure key information about their needs and how to meet them was shared with medical professionals if needed.

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 said they felt safe living at the service and knew who they could talk to if they were worried. Comments included, “I feel safe here. I would speak to [the registered manager] if I had any concerns” and “I would speak to my keyworker if I had any concerns. I’m confident they would sort out anything. I feel safe here.” We observed people who looked comfortable interacting with and in the company of staff.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities and said they completed regular safeguarding training. Staff were confident managers would take appropriate action if they reported safeguarding concerns. Staff were also aware how to raise these concerns outside of the organisation if they needed to. Safeguarding was discussed in staff meetings and individual supervision meetings. The registered manager told us this helped to keep safeguarding on the agenda and gave staff the opportunity to raise any concerns if they had any.

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. Everyone living at the service had capacity to consent to their care and treatment and no-one was being deprived of their liberty.

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.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the risks people faced and how to support them safely. Staff told us, and we saw in the records, that risk management plans were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed to ensure information was accurate. We observed staff following the risk management plans throughout the visit.

People had been supported to develop clear positive behaviour support (PBS) plans, setting out support they needed to manage periods of crisis and distress. PBS plans had been completed with input from the mental health team and were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed.

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

People told us the home was well maintained. The provider completed various health and safety checks to make sure the premises, and any equipment was safe. All equipment was being serviced regularly, and external contractors were used to check safety systems such as fire and water safety. Staff on site completed some checks such as fire alarms and means of escape routes in the event of a fire. Records demonstrated checks were completed in line with the provider’s timescales.

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.

People told us staff were available to help them when needed. Staff had been recruited safely. All the pre-employment checks had been completed prior to staff starting work. During our inspection we observed there were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs. Staff were available to support people out in the community if needed and to be present at the service. Staff felt there were sufficient staff provided to meet people’s needs.

Staff told us they received a good induction when they started working in the service and regular training. Staff said the training was a mix of in person and online courses, which gave them the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. The registered manager had a record of training staff had completed and when any refresher training was due.

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 was clean and smelt fresh. People told us staff provided support for them to keep their room clean. All areas of the service were frequently cleaned and well maintained. Staff had appropriate access to personal protective equipment and had received training on infection prevention and control good practice.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines were consistently recorded and stored safely. On the first day of the inspection records demonstrated 1 person had not received their medicine for 5 days. Staff reported the person had refused these medicines, although this had not been recorded. The person had a risk assessment in place covering refused medicines and records demonstrated previous incidents had been discussed with the prescribing team.

Additionally, staff had not consistently recorded the temperature at which medicines were being stored, with no record available in the service for May 2026. It is important to check that medicines are being stored within the correct temperature range to ensure medicines remain effective.

The registered manager took immediate action to address these shortfalls by the second day of inspection. Temperatures had been recorded daily since the first day of the inspection and demonstrated medicines were stored within a safe range. Risk management plans had been updated and the process for recording when people refused their medicines had been reiterated to all staff.

People were supported to be as independent as possible with the management of their medicines. People were supported to set goals to develop their confidence and independence in managing their medicines. The plans and goals had been regularly reviewed and updated. People told us they were happy with the support they received.