Leofric 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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.

When accidents and incidents occurred, staff took appropriate action, including seeking medical attention if required. One staff member told us, “I would complete an incident form, and this would be reviewed by the manager, to ensure the care plan was updated to reduce the chance of it happening again.” Effective systems were in place to identify any trends or patterns so actions could be taken to mitigate emerging risks.

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 knew people well and worked in partnership with health and social care professionals such as GP’s, community nurses and social workers to support people’s health and wellbeing. One healthcare professional told us, staff were responsive and accommodating to hospital discharges.

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.

During our inspection we identified 1 incident which had not been reported to the Local Authority and Care Quality Commission (CQC). At our request, the registered manager took immediate action and made the appropriate alert retrospectively. All other concerns had been shared quickly and appropriately.

People felt safe with the staff who supported them. One person said, “I absolutely, feel safe here, the staff are wonderful.” Another person told us, “Moving here was the best thing I did. I feel safe and secure; staff are always available.”

Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. One staff member told us, “If there were any concerns the manager would act on it straight away, to keep the person safe."

The provider did not always ensure the information staff needed to manage risks associated with people’s care was sufficiently detailed and easily accessible.

For example, 1 person had a respiratory condition. Their care plan referred to the person having good and bad days. It stated, “[Name] is in control”, but there was no guidance to inform staff of the action they should take if this person was having breathing difficulties. Another person was assessed as being at risk of falling. However, the risk assessment did not inform staff of the actions they needed to take to reduce this risk. Whilst risk reduction measures were recorded in the person’s mobility care plan some staff may find information difficult to locate.

There was no evidence to suggest people had been harmed as a result of the lack of detailed risk management and staff spoken with told us they would report any concerns they had. We discussed our findings with the district manager. They told us they had already identified this as an area for improvement and this was work in progress.

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

Environmental risk assessments had been completed with people to ensure their homes were well maintained and free from hazards. Guidance was in place for staff to follow on how to check equipment prior to use to ensure it was safe and in good working order.

Staff had completed fire safety training and took part in regular drills. Staff understood the action they needed to take to keep people safe in the event of a fire or other emergency. However, this training did not instruct staff to advise the fire service oxygen was in use and stored at Leofric Lodge, we discussed this with the district manager. The district manager explained due to the nature of the service the building is managed separately from the care provision and the housing manager had liaised with the fire service directly, informing them which flats had oxygen stored. However, the district manager assured us staff would be informed of the need to share where oxygen was stored with the fire service 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.

People were happy with the support they received from staff. One person said, “Staff are very helpful and respond quickly, if I need them.” Another person told us, “I think there are enough staff, not only do they do their work but do more too.”

Staff had been recruited safely in line with the providers policy and best practice guidance. Rotas demonstrated staffing levels were maintained and people were being supported by a consistent staff team.

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 had completed infection control training and demonstrated an understanding of how to reduce the risks of infection. Staff told us, “Personal protective equipment (PPE) was always available for staff to use to reduce the risk to our customers."

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 received medicines training and were assessed as competent before supporting people with their medicines. Medicines administration records had been signed by staff to reflect people received their medicine as prescribed.

Some people had ‘when required’ medicine such as creams and pain relief. Body maps were in place to inform staff where creams should be applied on the person’s skin. We saw 1 person’s ‘when required’ guidance for their pain relief was not clear about the maximum dose in a 24-hour period. We discussed this with the district and registered managers who assured us clearer information would be added.