Glen Arun 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.

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.

Staff recognised incidents and these were reported and recorded appropriately. Records demonstrated that accidents and incidents were investigated appropriately to ensure actions were taken to reduce the risk of recurrence. The deputy manager audited accidents and incidents, and practice was reviewed and changed to improve the service. This ensured a consistent and person-centred approach to supporting people.

Staff spoke positively about the learning culture at the service. All staff who provided feedback told us they were listened to. A staff member told us, “[We are] always learning.”

Relatives gave positive feedback regarding the service. A relative said, “They [Staff] listen and fix things.”

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 worked with external professionals to ensure people’s needs were suitably met. This included making appropriate referrals to other health and social care services where needed to enable people safe continuity of their care. People were supported appropriately with health appointments.

Staff gave specific examples of how they had liaised with the mental health team and a person’s GPs in order to access the required support to meet people’s needs.

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 deputy manager ensured there were systems and processes in place to identify, review and investigate safeguarding matters. Appropriate action had been taken when any concerns were raised. There was a whistle-blowing policy so if staff had concerns, they could report these. All staff who provided feedback said they were confident any concerns would be listened to. Staff told us they were, “Confident concerns will be dealt with. [Deputy Manager] wants everything to be good.]

People were comfortable in the presence of staff, and we observed warm interactions between them. Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe at the service. Relatives described the staff as, “helpful,” “supportive,” and, “kind.”

The deputy manager kept track of those who were under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and, when these needed to be renewed, had made appropriate referrals. Where people had conditions attached to their DoLS, for example medication reviews, we saw that these were followed.

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 were assessed on admission to the service and updated regularly. Where risks had been identified, these were assessed, and appropriate actions were in place to mitigate them. For example, where people were at risk of weight loss they were given higher calorie foods and offered supplements, including fortified milkshakes.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in making decision about their care, where appropriate, including around risks. Care plans considered risks to people. Guidance was provided to staff in how to minimise risks to people whilst encouraging their independence where possible. Staff provided support in a way which minimised risk for people. For example, where people were at risk of choking, staff sought input from a speech and language therapist (SaLT). This included advice on what people required to safely maintain their nutrition and hydration. This information was translated into people’s care plans and staff we spoke with were aware of people's individual needs.

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 deputy manager ensured there was a robust routine of environment checks in place. Appropriate maintenance audits were effective and completed within the allocated and suitable timeframes to promote a safe environment. Checks, such as fire alarm and portable appliance tests (PAT), were completed regularly.

People’s needs were met by staff who used equipment to assist them. This included hoists and wheelchairs. Records demonstrated that the equipment was maintained. Staff told us they had received training in the use of equipment. Staff used equipment appropriately to promote people's safety. For example, we saw that when people rang their call bells staff were very quick to respond and assist them.

Feedback from a relative included, “[Deputy manager] listens and things are fixed.”

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 meet people's needs and there were enough skilled and experienced staff deployed to keep people safe. We saw staff supported people in a relaxed manner and spent time with them. During our visit we saw staff were available and responded to people. People and their relatives told us there were enough staff. The described the staff as, “Helpful.” Relatives spoke highly of the staff. Comments included, “Staff do everything they can,” and, “The care is excellent.”

New staff began their induction by ‘shadowing’ experienced staff so they could familiarise themselves with the service. This led to a comprehensive plan of training which all staff undertook. This included e-learning, in-person training and competency checks. Competency checks were completed to monitor staff knowledge and practice. Staff had undertaken training in topics specific to the people living at the service including, dementia care, mental health awareness, end of life care and dysphagia. The deputy manager kept oversight regarding staff training to ensure this was kept up to date. Conversation with staff evidenced that they were knowledgeable and competent. Staff told us they were happy with the training. They said, “We are always learning,” and, “The training is good, it’s enough to do my job.”

Staff were recruited in line with safe practice. For example, checks were made to ensure staff were of good character and suitable for their role. This included obtaining references from previous employers. Checks with 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 provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff received training on infection control, they were trained in the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). There was a good supply of PPE within the service, and we saw staff using this when needed. Infection control audits were completed and reviewed practice, equipment and standards of cleanliness.

People and their relatives told us the service was clean and tidy. They told us the service was, “comfortable,” and, “clean.”

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 stored and administered safely. The provider had robust procedures in place to ensure safe delivery of medicines.Medicines were stored securely following current guidelines for the storage of medicines. There were a dedicated rooms for storing people’s medicines. The storage facilities were clean and organised. There were lockable fridges to store medicines that required lower storage temperatures. Daily temperatures of the fridge were taken and recorded to ensure the fridge remained at a safe temperature.

Each person had a medication administration record (MAR) detailing each item of prescribed medication and the time they should be given. Staff completed the MARs appropriately, for example staff waited to check people had taken their medicines before signing the administration records. People did not raise any concerns regarding the administration of their medicines.

Staff had received training, and competency checks were completed to ensure staff were suitably skilled to do their roles. All the staff we spoke to regarding the administration of medicines told us they felt confident and competent.