The Grove Care Centre - Thurnscoe

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 told us they were supported by a visible and approachable manager. They described an open culture where they could discuss mistakes and learning without fear. One staff member said, “It’s like one big family.” Another said, “We are like family, we have problems, but we sort it out.”

The registered manager had a system in place to monitor incidents and understood how to use them as learning opportunities to prevent future occurrences. The registered manager ensured lessons were learnt to prevent or reduce incidents. For example, when audits identified shortfalls, this would be analysed, and any improvements required would be implemented.

Professionals described the service as consistent and responsive, with good handovers and willingness to learn. Lessons were shared through staff meetings, supervision and daily use of electronic systems.

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's relatives were happy with the support their family members received to access other services. Staff worked with other organisations to deliver effective care and support to people. Handover systems were effective, with staff using electronic devices to record real‑time information. Staff regularly sought advice from community health professionals such as the GP, community matrons and social workers. This supported staff to achieve good health outcomes for people.

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 were safeguarded from abuse and possible harm. Staff received safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding about how to recognise and report abuse and poor care. One staff member said,”100% people are safe here.”

During our site visit we saw kind and respectful interactions between people and staff. Staff were seen to offer people choices and seek consent before supporting. The atmosphere in the home felt warm and inviting.

There were effective systems, processes and practices to make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. There was a commitment to taking immediate action to keep people safe from abuse and neglect. This included working with partners in a collaborative way.

People’s care records showed the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place or being sought to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were being met.

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.

Systems were in place to reduce the risk of people experiencing avoidable harm. People's care records contained assessments of the risks posed to them, and guidance for staff about how to manage those risks. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly or if people's needs changed.

Staff knew people well and were aware of how to reduce risk to keep people safe. Some people using the service required increased support when distressed and staff received training and clear guidance on how to do this safely. Staff we spoke with were aware of people's individual risks and shared with us how they used techniques to reduce the likelihood of people being harmed.

Risk assessments were completed, looking at the health and safety of the environment and equipment. Staff had received training in fire safety and there were regular fire drills. An emergency evacuation plan was in place for each person, to describe the support they would need in the event of a fire or other emergency evacuation of the building.

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 considered all aspects of the home, both internally and externally to ensure people lived freely within a safe environment. The provider undertook regular health and safety checks of the premises and equipment.

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 sufficient to keep people safe. There were enough staff on duty to provide people with the care and support they needed. Staff were patient and person centred in their interactions with people. They took the time to sit with people and have conversations about things of interest to them. People who use the service told us they felt there was sufficient staff to meet their needs.

Recruitment checks were completed to help make sure the staff employed at the service were assessed as suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff received regular training to ensure they had the right skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care. The training the provider considered to be mandatory included moving and handling, health and safety, fire safety, safeguarding, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and infection control.

Staff were supported by the management team through supervisions and appraisals. Supervisions are meetings between a manager and staff member to discuss any areas for improvement, concerns or training requirements. Appraisals are meetings between a manager and staff member to discuss goals and objectives. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager, and they could always raise any concerns or questions with them.

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 there was an effective infection control system in place. Staff followed cleaning schedules and had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons. All staff received training in infection control when they started working at the home.

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.

Medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely by staff. People received their medicines as prescribed by their GP. Staff were trained to administer medicines and their competency to do so was checked. Where people were prescribed medicines to be taken 'as and when required', there were detailed protocols in place which provided staff with guidance about when people may need these medicines. For example, where people could not inform staff verbally, they were in pain, the protocols described the symptoms staff should look out for to assess whether the person needed their medicine.