Garden 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 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.
Accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed, and procedures implemented to ensure people’s safety. Learning was shared with other services operated by the provider.

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 had access to a range of health and social care professionals when needed. Documents were in place to support people when they moved between care services. A new electronic care planning system had been implemented which helped to monitor people’s care and support needs, and identify when support was needed from external professionals. A healthcare professional said, “Staff collaborate well with me. When I visit to do medication reviews, all information which I require is made available such as MAR (medicine administration record) charts, care plans etc.”

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.
Staff completed safeguarding training and the staff we spoke to knew how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.
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). People who were subject to DoLS were appropriately cared for. DoLS applications were made when required and the service followed the safeguards that were put in place.

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’s health, safety and welfare had been assessed. Risk assessments were detailed, person-centred and effective at reducing risk. People, and their relatives or advocates when needed, had been involved in planning their care. We observed staff supporting people in line with their risk assessments such as regular checks when a person was walking up and down the corridor.
There were positive risk assessments in place to allow people to live their lives how they wished to while minimising risk wherever possible.
 

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 were in place to protect staff and people. The environment was clean and homely. People had access to an enclosed garden. Dementia friendly signage was in place to help people navigate round the service.
 

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.
Staff, people and relatives said there were enough staff available to support people safely. Staff were recruited in line with best practice guidance and were up to date with required training. Staff had regular supervisions with their managers. A staff member said, “Staff seems fair, we don’t use agency staff at all and the bank staff are really good as they know everyone.”
 

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.
Appropriate infection control procedures and policies were in place. Staff had received training and were observed using personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately. The service was clean and tidy; housekeeping staff were efficient. Some people enjoyed doing housework and were encouraged to help housekeeping staff when they wanted to.
 

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.
The service had an effective medicines administration system. Team leaders had medicines training, and their competencies were regularly checked to ensure they administered medicines safely. Regular medicines audits took place to ensure any issues were identified and dealt with quickly. People said they received their medicines on time. We observed staff helping people to take their medicines in a kind and calm manner.