CareTech Community Services Limited - 196 High Street Also known as Hunters 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 requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care as they did not always have effective systems in place to protect people from the risk associated with fire. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 59 (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 team was proactive in trying to address the issues identified at the last inspection and it was evident that changes were happening. Since the last inspection there had been 2 registered managers, and the most recent registered manager was recently appointed. We could see the positive impact the registered manager was making for people and staff. There were procedures in place for reporting incidents and accidents. Staff members told us handovers and having good communication was helpful to ensure people’s needs were met.

The registered manager was embedding safe systems of care. We saw examples of people been referred to health professionals. Health professionals confirmed staff were proactive and engaging in addressing people’s health needs. Staff provided advocacy for people to ensure their views and wishes were heard and respected during assessments.

People told us they were happy living at the home and they felt safe.

The systems and processes in place did not fully protect people from the risk of financial abuse. One person had been subjected to financial abuse. The systems in place for auditing the expenditure of people's money were therefore not effective as these records had been checked and the financial discrepancies had not been identified by the provider. There had been improvements to how people’s finances are now been managed and this has been audited regularly by the registered manager.

People’s safety and well-being had been assessed and there was appropriate mitigation in place to protect people from the risk of harm. There were risk assessments in place to ensure people were able to be as independent as possible and could enjoy activities they liked doing.

Our previous inspection found the provider did not always have effective systems in place for managing risks to the environment. There had been improvements however there was ongoing risks in the care environment. There were ongoing maintenance issues which were not addressed in a timely way. The registered manager was carrying out monthly infection control audits which identified issues and concerns, for example, dining and kitchen chairs needed to be replaced, the kitchen chairs had still not been replaced when we were on site. We also identified that the laundry cupboard door needed to be fixed but it was not completed. The registered manager had a maintenance log, and it was evident they were proactive in trying to get outstanding work completed. There had been improvements to people’s rooms, and they had been personalised and decorated in line with their preferences and wishes. The fire alarm system was checked and serviced in line with manufacturing guidelines and there was personal emergency evacuation plans in place which included information on people’s mobility and how they may respond to an emergency. There was weekly fire testing and one person who lived at the home was responsible for carrying out this task with staff.

There was enough staff to care for people and we saw staff were deployed effectively. Staff were receiving inhouse training, but healthcare professionals told us some staff needed more specific training to ensure they had the appropriate skills to care for people safely. We gave this feedback to the registered manager. The provider was carrying out the necessary checks to ensure staff were recruited safely.We saw evidence staff been supported towards promotion and staff spoke positively about this.

The provider did not always manage the risk of infection. One person’s bathroom was in need of repair and whilst some repairs had been carried out the standard of the repairs was not satisfactory. The registered told us there was a schedule of repairs which were outstanding, and the bathrooms would be repaired. Legionella assessments were carried out in line with legal requirements. Staff were provided with appropriate personal protective equipment and were observed wearing this appropriately.

Medicines were not always managed safely we observed medicines were removed from their original packaging and placed in pill cups before been administered. Medication was stored in this manner for a period of time prior to being administered. This meant staff were not following the providers medicine policy. The registered manager took action to address this with staff.

There were suitable arrangements for the storage of medicines. Temperatures were recorded to ensure medicines were stored at correct temperatures.There were effective protocols in place to staff on when it would be appropriate to administer medicines which were prescribed to be taken ‘when required’.