Lonsdale Midlands Limited - 164 Walker Road

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.

The registered manager had systems in place to ensure learning was taken from incidents and events. Governance meetings were held regularly during which information about any changes or learning were shared with the staff team. The provider also shared learning from incidents that had taken place at other services, as well as learning in relation to events involving staff.

Staff told us information was communicated with them using communication logs, staff meetings and supervisions.

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.

The registered manager regularly reviewed people’s needs to ensure their care and support met their current requirements. The staff team had regular contact with professionals from outside of the home who supported people with their health, medical needs and behavioural support. This included consultants, GP’s and learning disability specialists.

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.

Although people were unable to verbally share their experiences with us, we observed people interacting with staff and saw they were confident to approach staff and seek support. Staff offered reassurance when people needed it and quickly understood what people needed to comfort them.

Relatives were confident their family members were safe. One relative told us, “I am very, very happy. [Person] is very safe. We have a very good rapport with the staff; they are experienced and professional.” Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to raise concerns for people’s safety and well-being. They shared insights with us about how they would use people’s body language to work out if they were distressed and how they picked up on signs or triggers to enable them to offer reassurance to people.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that when needed, DoLS were in 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.

People’s risks were managed by staff who knew them well. Care plans contained detailed guidance about how staff should support people to keep them safe. The staff team took a positive approach to risk taking and supported people to live their lives as fully as possible. Risks were considered alongside people’s development of independent living skills. For example, 1 person liked to make their own cup of tea, but using a kettle presented risks. To support their independence, a 1 cup hot water dispenser had been purchased so they could make their own drinks without the need for staff support.

Staff told us, “Anything the person wants to do, we will talk to [name of registered manager] and they will start looking into it straight away. They say ‘let’s do a risk assessment’ and off we go.”

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 were comfortable in their home environment. The home was clean, tidy and well organised. The registered manager and team leader carried out frequent checks on the environment to ensure it remained safe for people. Any concerns were noted and reported to the maintenance team for repair or improvement.

The provider had been making on-going improvements to the home, including installation of a new bathroom and flooring replacement. The registered manager ensured any changes were planned around people’s individual needs so they were not disruptive to people’s routines.

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.

Relatives spoke positively about the staff team and the support they provided. One relative said, “We have no complaints, staff phone us if they want to ask questions or if anything crops up with [person]. I can’t praise them enough”.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staffing was allocated based on people’s individual assessed needs. The registered manager worked alongside funding authorities to ensure people received the support they needed to lead fulfilling lives.

Staff had received training relevant to their role and people’s individual needs. Training topics included those specifically related to supporting people with learning disabilities and these trainings were tailored to people’s individual needs. Staff told us the training they received gave them confidence in their roles. One staff member commented, “We have had training in all things and more. We are always asked in supervision meetings, is there anything else you would like to do?”

The provider had carried out pre-employment checks to ensure staff were safely recruited.

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 people were protected from the risk of cross infection. Regular cleaning was carried out and equipment used for cleaning was stored safely and securely. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control, and Person Protective Equipment (PPE) was readily available for staff to use.

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 received their medicines as prescribed. Staff had received training in the management and administration of medicines, and systems used for the management of medicines were safe. Where people were prescribed ‘as required’ medicines to support them in times of distress, there were clear protocols in place to ensure these were administered consistently and only when required.

Daily checks were carried out to ensure stock levels were accurate and audits were also completed to provide oversight and identify any areas where improvements were needed.