Archived: Hazelwell 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 inspection 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 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

People, and/or their relatives, told us people were safe living at the home. One person told us, “I'm as happy as I can be. I do feel safe, yes. They [staff] treat you very well here.” Another person said, “They [staff] are very nice people here. It certainly does feel safe to me.”

One relative said, “Yes I do feel that [name] is kept safe, cared for by people who care about the residents.” Another relative told us, “Yes, I believe [name] is kept safe based on the evidence of her care and good rapport with staff. I have no concerns around safety.”

Staff knew the signs of abuse to look out for and told us they would report these to one of the managers to ensure action was taken to keep people safe. There were appropriate policies and procedures in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.

Safeguarding concerns were reported to the local authority safeguarding team, and the provider knew what actions were needed to keep people safe.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Some processes needed to be improved to ensure care and support was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and relatives told us they felt care was provided in a safe way, and staff responded quickly if there was a change in a person’s care needs. One relative said, “[Name] is safe around other residents. She had a risk assessment to use a frame and wheelchair sometimes.” Another relative told us, “Staff use a [hoist] to move [name] from bed to chair quite safely. [There have been] no accidents. Risks were assessed regarding the use of the [hoist]. [Staff are] very quick and on the ball.”

Risk management for people with specific health care needs, such as the risk of malnutrition or skin damage, was good. However, some other risk assessments needed more detail to guide staff fully. For example, we discussed 1 risk assessment which did not give clear guidance for people not to use the stairs in question.

This issue was discussed with the registered manager and the deputy manager who accepted improvements were needed. They would review assessments to make sure they contained enough detail to ensure people and staff member’s safety.

The provider had systems in place designed to ensure the home was a safe place to live and work. Some processes needed to be improved to better ensure safety.

The home had their own maintenance team, one of whom was the health and safety lead. There were a range of regular environmental checks carried out including on hot water temperatures, fire safety equipment and emergency lighting.

There was an extension being built in part of the home’s back garden. One person had gained access to the site and sustained a serious injury. This incident is currently subject to further investigation.

During our first visit, we saw people were using wheelchairs with no footplates attached. This placed them at risk. It was evident certain staff still smoked in the laundry courtyard despite being told not to as this could be a fire risk. One wall in the back garden was leaning and could be dangerous. The maintenance team had put up tape to highlight the danger. One fire exit was not clear. The filter for the home’s tumble dryer was not fixing properly in place. This could be a fire risk. These issues were raised with the deputy manager and the maintenance team who took immediate action.

On our second visit we saw wheelchairs had footplates and fire exits were all clear. The tumble dryer had a new effective filter. Staff now smoked in the designated area, and the laundry courtyard had been cleaned. The garden wall in question belonged the neighbouring property. The provider would discuss and resolve this issue with the neighbours.

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.

People, and their relatives, spoke highly of staff, both in relation to the care they provided and their caring nature. One person told us, “It is brilliant here. The staff are all very good and there are always staff around to help me.” One relative told us, “Kind and compassionate staff, absolute sweeties. They go out of their way to care as if it was their own relative. They are very gentle.” Another relative said staff were, “Kind, caring and compassionate, some are outstanding. The whole team treat everyone as an individual.” We saw many examples of kind, patient and compassionate care being provided on both days we visited.

Staff told us they were well trained, well supported and their welfare was important to managers and the provider. One staff member said, “[The registered manager’s] unwavering support and commitment to our team's well-being have been a source of strength and inspiration.” Records confirmed staff were provided with comprehensive training such as health and safety practices and how to care for people living with dementia or people who were nearing the end of their lives.

Formal supervision meetings with staff and regular staff meetings were held. Staff told us they thought communication was an area for improvement. For example, staff were not always aware of what had been discussed at team meetings, although we were told minutes were displayed in the staff room. This was discussed with the registered manager who would ensure all staff read the minutes in the future.

People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely. Appropriate checks were carried out on all new staff to ensure they were of good character and safe to support vulnerable people.

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.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.