White Cliffs 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 assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and staffing. Improvements in staffing and staff training, staff being able to recognise and report safeguarding concerns, and how the provider assessed and monitored individual risks to people were found at this assessment. The provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The management in the service identified lessons learnt from incidents, accidents and safeguarding concerns and took action to improve the service where needed. For example, one person had experienced multiple falls, and staff took action to seek additional medical support, to review the person’s support and living environment which in turn reduced their risk of falls. Staff told us lessons learnt were discussed and shared with them with guidance on what actions were needed to improve people’s support and safety.

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 and their relatives told us support and care were well-coordinated, and they felt staff supported them to access any health and social care services appropriately when needed. People’s records showed transitions in care were well planned and assessed with people being involved. For example, there were clear treatment escalation plans for people with personalised documentation in place in case they needed to use emergency or hospital services. There were robust assessments of needs for people who recently moved into the home.

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 we spoke with told us they felt safe in their home and with staff. We saw staff treated people with kindness and compassion and continued to provide calm and reassuring support even when people were becoming distressed. Staff knew how to recognise and report any safeguarding concerns and felt confident to do so. Whistleblowing and safeguarding information were readily available in the service. Safeguarding concerns were appropriately reported and investigated with appropriate actions taken to protect people when needed. A healthcare professional working with the service commented, “Staff demonstrate good knowledge of safeguarding measures and when to escalate concerns.”

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. People told us staff knew their individual needs and how to support them safely. Staff we spoke with had good understanding of people’s individual needs and risks and could explain what support was needed to support people to keep well and safe. People now had detailed individual support plans and risk assessments in place which addressed their physical, health related, mental and emotional as well as behavioural support needs. A relative explained, “When [person] is stressed, staff know to step back and give them space, a buffer zone so they do not get more agitated. [Staff] know [the person] very well. They also make sure new people (who start working in the service or visiting professionals) know that as well.” A healthcare professional working with the service fed back, “I feel since the new management team have been in place the service has improved dramatically, the staff are caring, professional and have a good understanding of the people that they support. They will ask for support from our team when needed and follow guidelines for healthcare well.” However, there were still some inconsistencies in people’s support records around specific health and mobility risks for 2 people and the monitoring of care for another person which we fed back to the registered manager. The registered manager and deputy manager immediately took action to update the support plans with input from relevant healthcare professionals and implemented a range of actions to improve daily care records going forward.

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 showed us how maintenance works were being addressed to ensure a safe environment. People’s relatives told us they were updated around any changes in the safety of the home environment and overall, this has improved significantly since the last inspection. Outstanding maintenance works were being addressed and the management team provided robust assurances on actions being taken, for example, to resolve any faults and re-decorate people’s bedrooms or bathrooms, or to improve the communal garden. Staff carried out regular checks of the environment and the provider ensured safety of the equipment and the home. The provider had a detailed business continuity plan in place in case of any emergencies and unforeseen events which could affect people’s support.

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 told us there were enough staff to support them with day-to-day activities and to do what they liked. We saw there were enough staff to attend to people’s needs promptly and to support people to go out. The provider had clearly assessed staffing levels in the service, and the management maintained and monitored those. Staff team were now consistent, well-trained and supported to ensure their competence to support individual people. The management team fully reviewed staff training and additional training was completed by staff. The managers also implemented new staff competency checks via direct observation of practice and supervision discussions. New staff were complimentary about the induction and support they received and were recruited safely.

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 environment was clean and hygienic. People, their relatives and visiting professionals told us they had no concerns around people’s home environment and staff practice. The provider had appropriate processes, policies, staff training and day-to-day service checks in place around infection prevention and control. Personal protective equipment and hand washing facilities were readily available in the home. Where we raised some feedback about storage arrangements in people’s bathrooms during our visit, this was immediately actioned and improved by the management.

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. A person using the service told us they received good support with their medicines and staff were always on time to help them. A relative told us, "[Person’s] medication appears to be handled well", and commented appropriate medicines are always provided for visits to the family home. Staff we spoke with had good knowledge and understanding of safe medicines management. Staff completed appropriate records and had access to clear guidance when supporting people with their medicines. However, we fed back to the management not all liquid, cream or ointment medicines were appropriately labelled when opened (although all were safe to be used) for staff to be able to monitor their shelf life. The risks in relation to flammable creams or anticoagulant medicines were not always clearly addressed and cross-referenced in people’s support planning records. The management team took immediate action to address this and provided evidence of update records during the assessment.