South Highnam

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.Improvements had been made since the last inspection, and they were no longer in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and the governance of the service.

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.

The registered manager promoted a learning open culture. Systems were in place to gather and analyse information from a range of sources[PJ1], including accident and incidents, the findings were used to improve the service. Lessons learned were actively shared with all staff to ensure changes were embedded.

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 a range of health and social care professionals ensuring people received joined up care and support.

A healthcare professional told us, “I have been involved with [person] who recently transitioned to South Highnam. South Highnam worked brilliantly with the multi-disciplinary team to support (person’s) move into the service. They ensured that [person] was familiarised with the staff, residents, and the environment which really helped with his transition.”

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.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff had completed safeguarding training. A relative told us, “[Family member] is happy there and has lived there over 20 years. The place is safe.”

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

The home was working within the principles of the MCA. When people lacked mental capacity to make specific decisions, a best interests decision meeting had taken 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.

Improvements had been made in the management of risks.

Individual and environmental risks had been identified and managed. Records outlined how best to mitigate the risk, to support staff to keep people safe. These were regularly reviewed to ensure the information remained accurate and complete. Staff sought additional support and guidance from external healthcare professionals to reduce the risks identified. A healthcare professional told us, “This individual was new to hoisting which they (staff) recognised and respected and attempted to find a solution around reducing his distress.”

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

People lived in a safe environment. Health and safety checks were regularly completed. A plan was in place to ensure people had continuity of care in the event of an emergency. Fire drills were regularly conducted.

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 were recruited safely. Appropriate pre-employment checks, including obtaining references from previous employers and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. People received care and support from suitably skilled and experienced staff.

People were supported by a consistent staff team. Staffing levels were determined by the needs of the people who used the service. A relative told us, “I visit on Tuesday and his [relative] visits on Thursday we always see enough staff around.”

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 home was clean and tidy. Staff followed safe infection prevention practices and used personal protective equipment to help prevent the spread of infections. Staff had completed food safety training and followed these principles when preparing meals for people.

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.

Improvements had been made to the management and administration of medicines.

The medicines room was clean and clutter free. Medicines administration records were accurate and complete. Staff had completed medication training and received regular observations of practise to ensure they remained at the appropriate standard.

The home followed guidance for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines. Regular audits were completed. People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were attentive to people’s needs and offered support and reassurance when administering medicines.