Hill Barn Care Home

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.

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.

Accidents and incidents of distressed behaviours were recorded clearly on people’s care records. These were reviewed by the manager and where needed an investigation was completed. If the investigation highlighted areas for improvement a lessons learnt form was completed and shared amongst staff.

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.

Referrals were completed for people in relation to concerns or changes to people’s needs related to swallowing issues, mobility and distressed behaviours. These were made as soon as they had been identified. One staff member said, ‘I am always kept up to date with new admissions and changes to people’s needs. We have flash meetings every day. The [manager] is very up front and honest about everything. I always know what is happening and if anyone has been taken to hospital’.

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.

Accidents and incidents were well documented and frequently reviewed by the manager. Where appropriate safeguarding concerns were reported to the local authority safeguarding team. If needed, actions were taken to reduce the risk of future occurrences. The manager reviewed safeguarding referrals to ensure they were up to date with the outcome.

We received positive feedback from people and their relatives, 1 person told us, “I feel very safe here.” While one relative said, “[family member] is in a safe place and the staff understand [them] well.”

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 had individualized risk assessments in place relating to different health conditions and needs such as choking, mobility and falls, heart failure and tremors. These were reviewed regularly and provided information for staff on the health condition and guidance for them to follow.

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

The service had effective systems in place to monitor the safety of the environment and equipment, any concerns identified were seen to be rectified quickly.

People had detailed Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified staff.

On the first visit we observed lunchtime and found that 1 staff member was assisting 2 people with their meal at the same time. We received feedback from staff that they felt there were not adequate staffing levels in the afternoons. One staff member told us, “To be able to provide high quality care I think we always need 3 carers. Especially in the afternoon as it gets busier. A few of our residents get more distressed in the afternoons.” Some ‘resident surveys’ which we saw also raised concerns with staffing levels.

Staff received training relevant to their roles and competency assessments to assess their understanding of several topics including safeguarding and dysphagia.

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 had effective systems in place to monitor the cleanliness of the home. All areas of the home were observed to be well maintained. There is an Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) champion in place who provides additional training to staff on IPC processes and managements of infections. The service monitored the use of antibiotics monthly.

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 seen to be safely stored, managed, and administered by trained staff. One person was receiving medication covertly; discussions for this to happen safely had involved the GP, Pharmacist and their relatives.

People received regular medication reviews.