Aniska Lodge

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 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 recognised incidents and these were reported and recorded appropriately. The registered manager held monthly meetings with staff to discuss any incidents which had occurred. Staff discussed incidents and whether interventions had worked well or not. They shared their experiences so these could be learnt from.These discussions ensured practice was reviewed and changes were made to improve the service. This ensured a consistent and person-centred approach to supporting people. All staff who provided feedback told us they felt valued, and their opinions were listened to.

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.

Staff worked with external professionals to ensure people’s needs were suitably met. This included making appropriate referrals to other health and social care services where needed to enable people safe continuity of their care. People were supported appropriately with health appointments.

Visiting healthcare professionals provided feedback which included, ‘The registered manager and nursing staff are proactive about ensuring admission avoidance plans are in place with their new residents and request support with these in a timely manner, the administrator is included in processes, and this helps with the smooth running and ensuring record keeping is accurate.’

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 registered manager ensured there were systems and processes in place to identify, review and investigate safeguarding matters. Appropriate action had been taken when any concerns were raised. The registered manager kept track of those who were under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and, when these needed to be renewed, had made appropriate referrals. There was a whistle-blowing policy so if staff had concerns, they could report these. All staff who provided feedback said they were confident their concerns would be listened to.

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.

Risks to people were assessed on admission to the service and updated regularly. Where risks had been identified, these were assessed, and appropriate actions were in place to mitigate them. For example, where people were at risk of skin or pressure damage, appropriate pressure relieving aids, such as mattresses, were in situ.

People told us they were involved in making decision about their care, including around risks. Care plans were robust and clearly considered risks to people. Clear guidance was provided to staff in how to minimise risks to people but still encourage them to be as independent as possible. Feedback from visiting healthcare professionals included, ‘The proactive approach of staff is commendable in identifying and mitigating risks to people’s health and well-being.’

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

The facilities were going through scheduled improvements, which included work repair to the roof. The registered manager had a schedule of completion for this work and there was a plan in place to ensure the associated risks were mitigated.

The registered manager had a robust routine of environment checks in place. Appropriate maintenance audits were effective and completed within the allocated and suitable timeframes to promote a safe environment. Checks such as fire alarm and water safety were completed regularly.

Feedback from visiting healthcare professionals included, ‘The home is welcoming, and a pleasant environment seems to be maintained during my visits.’

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.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people's needs and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff deployed to keep people safe. We saw staff supported people in a relaxed manner and spent time with them. During our visit we saw staff were available and responded to people. Everyone who provided feedback told us the staffing numbers were appropriate to meet people’s needs. They confirmed that people’s care needs were being met by staff who were well trained and knew them well. People described the staff as, “competent” and “capable”. They also said, “They [staff] are really nice.” “The people [staff] are all good, all of them.” “I can’t fault it,” and “I have no concerns.”

New staff received induction training which led on to a comprehensive plan of training. Staff had undertaken training in topics specific to the people living at the service including, dementia care and behaviours that challenge (distressed behaviours). The registered manager kept oversight regarding staff training to ensure this was kept up to date. Regular competency checks were completed to monitor staff knowledge and practice. Staff told us they were happy with the training. A staff member provided feedback which included, ‘[Working at Aniska] has been a wonderful journey. Being part of such an outstanding team. I feel more confident to carry out given tasks. I also had the opportunity to develop my career with the support of management.’

Staff were recruited in line with safe practice. For example, checks were made to ensure staff were of good character and suitable for their role. This included obtaining references from previous employers. Checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

A staff member provided feedback which included, ‘Having recently joined Aniska I have been exceptionally happy with how efficient all staff and management have been. Efficient in collating my joining papers and providing me with training / induction. Staff are all so helpful and it's a very welcoming place to work.’

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 received training on infection control, they were trained in the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). There was a good supply of PPE within the service, and we saw staff using this when needed. Infection control audits were completed and reviewed practice, equipment and standards of cleanliness.

People told us they were happy with the cleaning at the service, one person told us, “It's very clean, they are fussy about cleanliness.”

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.

People’s medicines were stored and administered safely. Medicines were stored securely following current guidelines for the storage of medicines. There were a dedicated rooms for storing people’s medicines. The storage facilities were clean and organised. There were lockable fridges to store medicines that required lower storage temperatures. Daily temperatures of the fridge were taken and recorded to ensure the fridge remained at a safe temperature.

Each person had a medication administration record (MAR) detailing each item of prescribed medication and the time they should be given. People did not raise any concerns regarding the administration of their medicines.

Staff had received training, and competency checks were completed to ensure staff were suitably skilled to do their roles. All the staff we spoke to regarding the administration of medicines told us they felt confident and competent.

Feedback from a visiting healthcare professional included, ‘[We] have visited Aniska Lodge to carry out annual medication reviews for their residents. On each occasion we met with [Clinical Lead] and at times [registered manager] was present. Both appear to have great knowledge of their residents and their medication and were able to give us a good detailed all round picture (patient centred).They are very open to make any changes that they feel will benefit their residents and at no time have I felt any resistance.’