Simon Marks 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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to 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. Systems and processes in place had now ensured that any incidents and accidents taking place were recorded, reported, and investigated as necessary to ensure people’s safety. We saw actions being taken to support a person regarding their anxiety and proactive strategies used to assist the person to manage this.

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. We saw evidence of health care professional involvement this was incorporated into care plans and followed by staff. One staff member told us, “We work with health professionals that visit and follow their guidelines and advice, we have built good relationships.”

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 felt safe living at this care home, people told us, “‘I feel safe here because I know all the staff and they are a good bunch” and “I have no problems here; I like the people here and feel they like me. I feel safe because I have my own room, and no one comes in.” A family member told us, “It’s brilliant how they look after them, they are very friendly, and the home is homely.” Staff were aware of the safeguarding procedure and the actions they had to take to ensure people lived safely and free from abuse. Their comments included, “I am aware of when and how to raise a safeguarding and would not hesitate to do so”, “I would speak with my manager and follow up with them what action had been taken.”

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. Risk assessments were clear and regularly reviewed and updated. Records of care delivery showed staff were adhering to care plans, for example regarding diet, pressure area care and ongoing checks on people’s welfare. We saw evidence of where people required additional support and how many staff would be required to support with this. We saw where people required mobility aids these were clearly documented in the persons care plan.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Wes saw evidence of people having appropriate equipment in place where required, equipment such as Zimmer frames were always within easy reach of people. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan(PEEP) were in place for people.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff were now receiving regular supervisions which included staff's training needs. Staff were required to undertake pre-employment checks before they started working with people. There had been some recent staffing changes, and the manager informed us they were building a stable team with staff that had the skills and values that were in line with the providers. There was evidence of enough staff being in place, however we received mixed feedback from people who used service with one telling us, “Staff are busy they don’t have time to sit down and talk to you.” And another person saying, “The staff are well trained and do their mighty best.” One relative told us, “There seems to be plenty of staff around when we visit and they are well trained, know what they are doing.”

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. We saw staff following good hygiene practices and using personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons effectively and safely.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. Medicines were stored securely; staff we spoke to know the residents well and could explain how the medicines systems supported them to ensure people received their medicines at the right time.

We saw from records that medicines were being administered as prescribed and there was a stock balance system in place to ensure that people did not run out of medicines.

The homes medicines administration system had a dashboard which provided staff and the manager with a clear visual of when medicines needed to be administered, what medicines were not administered, and what medicines were to be administered at the next round. This meant they could plan with staff so that people received their medicines at the right time. Where medicines were not administered records documented reasons why.

We looked at supporting documentation such as care plans and when required protocols were in place. Some further work was needed for covert care plans to ensure that the care plan and medicines administration system contained the same person-centred details.

Topical medicines were available, and records showed these were being applied, however we saw that three tubs did not comply with the expiry dates the homes policies listed. The home took immediate action to rectify this.

The home was working with their pharmacy provider and GP to ensure that over stocked medicines were reduced.

Staff competency and training records were in place and were up to date. Where governance arrangements and audits identified areas for improvement, these were followed up and actions were recorded with timelines. If any medication incidents or errors occurred, the home had a system in place to share learning with staff to prevent re-occurrence.