Simonsfield 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 people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

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.

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 registered manager used a dependency tool to determine staffing levels based on people’s assessed needs. However, feedback from people indicated they experienced delays in receiving support with personal care, particularly assistance to use the bathroom. One person told us, “I love it here, the only issue is having to wait for someone to take you to the bathroom. I know they are busy, but at times I have accidents as a result.”

In addition, staff had not received all the training required to meet people’s needs effectively. For example, training was needed in catheter care and supporting people living with Parkinson’s disease. We raised these concerns with the provider, who acknowledged our findings and took prompt action to address them by reviewing staff deployment to ensure a staff member was readily available within the lounge areas to provide timely support to people with their personal care needs.Additional training was provided to staff to strengthen their knowledge and understanding of the specific health conditions and needs of the people they supported.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider did not always make sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning. People’s medicines were not always administered in line with prescribers’ instructions. For example, time critical medicines were not consistently given at the prescribed times, and staff did not always demonstrate an understanding of the potential impact this could have on people’s health and wellbeing. We raised these concerns with the registered manager, who acknowledged our findings and took prompt action to address them, including seeking advice and support from relevant healthcare professionals.