Croft Avenue 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

The registered manager facilitated team meetings to reflect on safety events and share best practice. Lessons learned were shared with other locations under the provider. Staff told us that training was provided to ensure that they could carry out their role effectively and a staff member told us that they felt listened to when proposing new ways of working to aid in the safety of the people they worked alongside. The electronic care records allowed for easy reporting and sharing of information between staff and managers.
 

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 understood their role in supporting people to access appointments. Records showed people had access to a range of health and social care professionals when needed. People were assessed before they moved into the service and this information was used to develop care plans.

Policies and procedures ensured a consistent approach to recording, understanding and acting on risks. People’s safety was a priority, and the systems in place supported this.
 

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 safe from abuse. There was no evidence of bullying or harassment within the service. Safeguarding concerns were raised and dealt with accordingly. Safeguarding was taken seriously by the registered manager and others. Safeguarding formed part of the induction and ongoing supervision with staff, who were confident how to report concerns, and who to.
Staff told us that, for instance, should a medication error occur they knew the process to follow and stated they, “would also inform the person and their family due to a Duty of Candour.”
A visitor said, “We have never seen anything to worry us, we are made welcome and what is so good for us is that (person) looks so well … when the time comes, all of us would come in here, if needed.”
 

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. This covered all key areas, including falls, nutrition, and skin integrity, along with individual identified risks. Risk assessments were sufficiently detailed, person-centred and effective at reducing risk. Safeguards were not unnecessarily restrictive, and people’s rights and freedoms were respected. Records showed staff followed the assessments to keep people safe. Staff knew people well and understood the risks people were exposed to and told us they were kept up to date with changes in people’s needs.
We saw people who required them had mobility aids, walking frames or wheelchairs. We heard staff remind people gently to use their aids and prompt correct use. Bed rails and sensor mats were used when needed to keep people safe.
 

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. Risk assessments were thorough and well documented. Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place and staff knew what to do in an emergency to safely support people.

The lift was out of order and had been for several months. The registered manager said, “The provider is in the process of sourcing a brand-new lift and this should be decided upon very soon.” People and visitors consistently shared their feedback with us about the lift being out of service, telling us it was, ‘‘Restrictive of their (people’s) movements’. One family member said, “Well it’s the lift that’s the real issue really, it's been like that since Christmas, and they keep saying it’s going to be replaced time and time again,” and “It’s fine except for the lift.” Two stair lifts were in use in the service, but people required staff support to use these.

The décor and furnishings were well maintained and there was an ongoing refurbishment plan. People lived in a homely and comfortable environment which included accessible outdoor patio and garden areas.

Control measures and checks were in place to ensure that equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.
 

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 was safe and well-managed. The provider carried out pre-employment checks and new staff went through a comprehensive induction. This included face to face training, shadowing and competence checks. The registered manager had implemented online processes to allow them to check that all staff were valid to work at the service. Staffing levels were safe and there was a good skill mix of staff members allocated to shifts. There were procedures in place in the event of staff member absence. Managers were available through the week and on some weekends, with senior staff members on shift when managers were not.
Staff received regular supervision and appraisals. Staff told us they felt supported and encouraged within their role and development.
 

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.
Infection prevention and control was well-managed. No concerns were raised. Staff used Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when needed and maintained good hand hygiene and food preparation practices. PPE was readily available throughout the service.

Staff received Infection Prevention and Control training as part of their induction.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to reduce the risks of people and staff catching and spreading infections. Bathroom and toilet facilities were clean, tidy and free from clutter. Bins were emptied regularly, and the facilities and equipment were cleaned between use. Fresh flowers and plants were located around the service. The provider told us that they had recently changed the cleaning products for a plant-based option, so it was more eco-friendly and did not contain harmful chemicals.
 

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.

People’s medicines were managed safely. The service had an effective electronic medicines administration system in place. The registered manager maintained close oversight of medicines administration records to identify any errors or patterns. The electronic system made closer scrutiny of medicines administration simpler and meant fewer errors.

Staff received initial training and regular competency checks of their practice to ensure they were safe and confident. The provider’s policies regarding medicines were up to date and in line with good practice. Where people were prescribed ‘as and when required’ or covert administration, medicines protocols were in place. We observed staff administering medicines in a safe and person-centred way.