Truscott Manor 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 providers first assessment since it re-registered. This key question has been rated 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.

Incidents and accidents were consistently recorded. The registered manager had oversight of recorded incidents to determine whether changes to people support needed to be made. Incidents were reviewed and there was clear description that included any actions taken. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.

Risks were not overlooked, and care plans and risk assessments addressed any concerns over people’s mobility and health etc. Relevant referrals had been made to address any additional support people needed to stay safe.

Safety and continuity of care was a priority in people’s care. This happened through a collaborative, joined-up approach to safety that involved them along with staff and other partners in their care.

Assessments of need and risk assessments were completed during the initial assessment of care to ensure safe, effective support. Care plans captured people's health conditions and medical needs. These provided the staff with the guidance they needed to seek additional professional health support and when to make appropriate referrals to partners

Staff spoke positively about the joined-up approach, and information sharing, in the home that ensured continuity and safety. One staff member said, “We always have the nurse’s assessment. As well as at handover, the nurses will tell us about a new admission, what they have, what we should do, what their needs are, their food, if it’s a soft diet for example, how many staff are required to move them. They always tell us about the condition of the person.”

People told us that staff made them feel safe living at home. One person said, “Yes I feel very safe here, the facilities are great, and the staff are so lovely.”

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding, reporting processes and how to take appropriate action. Staff had the training and knowledge to ensure they could recognise when people may be unsafe and to identify potential signs of abuse. One professional said, “(Staff) also know when to raise a safeguarding and to liaise with social services. Often residents with complex neurological conditions have fluctuating cognition so staff seem to understand capacity is variable and know when to seek professional help with capacity assessments and communication/cognitive assessments.”

People were safeguarded as staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were protected when issues around capacity had been identified. Mental capacity assessments had been conducted and recorded to determine whether they had capacity to make specific decisions about their care. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were completed appropriately and in people’s best interests with minimal restrictions. Where people had a DoLS in place, conditions to their authorisations were being met. One professional said, “If they have any concerns or worry about restrictions, they always seem to be open and honest. DoLS conditions are usually met.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. 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 had been identified and assessed. These risks were person centred and ensured that care plans had the information staff needed to manage these risks safely. For example, some people had been identified as requiring ongoing monitoring and support with pressure area care. There were detailed assessments that provided guidance which staff followed.

Risks associated with the safety of the environment and equipment were identified and managed appropriately. Regular checks to ensure fire safety had been undertaken and people had personal emergency evacuation plans which informed staff of how to support people to evacuate the building in the event of an emergency.

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

The environment permitted people to be able to move around freely, and communal areas were being used actively. The registered manager told us that redevelopment and upgrading of the environment was ongoing, for example, a new communal wet room had been completed. The registered manager acknowledged the challenges of changing and updating the home given its size and age but stated that areas for improvement had been identified and the provider was proactive in making changes.

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 levels were appropriate to ensure the safety of people at the home. One person said of staffing levels, “There are times when its busier, but it never feels they are short staffed, even at night.”

New staff completed a full induction and probationary period. Training had been identified and provided to staff according to the needs of the people living at Truscott Manor.

Staff were consistently recruited through an effective recruitment process that ensured they were safe to work with people. Appropriate checks had been completed prior to staff starting work which included checks through the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

The home had effective systems and processes in place to prevent and control infections, ensuring people lived in a clean, safe, and comfortable environment.

The provider had a contingency policy in place should there be an outbreak at the home. Due to the size and layout of the home, the provider had considered high risk areas that required an increased cleaning presence and monitoring. Infection prevention and control audits were monitored monthly and actions that were identified had been completed.

Staff understood the importance of good infection control practices and were observed following guidance on hand hygiene, personal protective equipment (PPE), and safe food handling. Staff had access to PPE. One staff member said, “I have completed infection prevention and control training, and we have sufficient PPE. We haven’t had any recent infections.”

The provider ensured that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People’s medicines were managed, administered and stored safely by nurses and team leaders. Staff had received training in medicines and competencies in administration were completed regularly. Medication administration records showed that people received their medicines as prescribed, and these records were completed accurately. PRN protocols were in place for medicines which were prescribed on a ‘when required’ basis. Regular audits were carried out to ensure there was enough stock and that storage was appropriate.

We observed a series of medicines being administered which was completed safely and effectively. People spoke positively about the administration of their medicines. Regarding medication timings, one person said, “Yes can’t think of an occasion when it has not been.”

Professionals who worked with staff spoke positively about the homes approach. One professional said, “I have always found the registered manager and their team very approachable and open to any suggestions to improve their medication management. The communication from the home is generally very good, with them informing us of any interim medication required and any updates to residents and their medication.” Another professional said, “The nursing staff are very efficient, sensitive and open about concerns. I have noted they continue to strive to reduce some medications with a sedative effect.”