Cera Lanehurst Gardens

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 first assessment for this service under its new registration. 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.

Safety was a priority for those working at the service.

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. People were encouraged to raise any concerns if they had them and told us that issues were taken seriously and resolved quickly.

There were systems in place to facilitate safe pathways and transfers for people.

Assessments of need and risk assessments were completed during the initial assessment of care to ensure safe, effective support. The provider and staff worked with collaborative partners to ensure care was joined up and people had continuity to support their care and support needs.

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. Referrals were made to specialist services such as occupational therapists, dieticians, speech and language therapists and district nurses.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. One person said, “I feel very safe here. The care and attention you get is very good.”

The registered manager was aware of their safeguarding responsibilities and to notify the CQC of any abuse or suspected abuse. Staff had the training and knowledge to ensure they could recognise when people may be unsafe and to identify potential signs of abuse. Staff understood processes for reporting these concerns. Information about people’s care was protected by adherence to data protection policies and consent processes.

Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. People were protected when issues around capacity had been identified. Mental capacity assessments were conducted and recorded to determine whether they had the capacity to make specific decisions about their care.

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, hydration and nutrition risks to people had been assessed and actions put in place to mitigate these. Risks had been assessed for people’s health conditions and their care and support.

People and professionals spoke positively about staffs’ approach to risk. One professional said, “They appear to manage risk well but will contact our team for advice when needed. Cera Care took appropriate actions in terms of risk, had correct documentation to show us, were very kind to the customer, they had clearly built up a great rapport with them and were trying all they could to keep the customer safe and well supported.”

Risks to people’s own living environment had been thoroughly assessed. The provider is not responsible for the safety of the overall service but worked closely with the housing provider to ensure that the facility was safe and provided an environment to provide safe and effective care. Effective partnership working with the commissioning local authority extra care team supported this.

People told us that they felt safe when carers provided support in their flats and trusted staff to maintain a safe environment. One person said, “They are security conscious about who comes in and out.”

There were enough staff to provide safe support. Call timings were generally to people’s preference and the provider looked to give people as much continuity of care as possible.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to provide people’s care. New staff completed a full induction and probationary period. Training had been identified and provided to staff according to the needs of the people receiving support at the extra care scheme. These included safeguarding, Mental Capacity Act (MCA), medication, fluids and nutrition, and moving and handling. When required, more specialist support and training was provided to meet specific needs.

People told us they were confident in the skills of the staff team. One person said, “Carers are confident and know what they're doing.” One relative said, “They are very skilled with dementia - comforting and reassuring. Very patient when (loved one) is distressed and they will explain things to her.”

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.

Systems and processes were in place to protect people and to prevent and control the risks of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and food safety awareness and there was an IPC policy and procedure in place which staff could access.

When supporting people in their homes and providing personal care, staff used the appropriate personal protective equipment, (PPE) such as face masks, disposable aprons and gloves. The provider ensured that staff had access to enough PPE. The provider completed spot checks on carers to ensure good hand washing techniques and that uniforms met standards that promoted good hygiene management.

Where applicable some people received support from staff to maintain cleanliness in their flats. The provider worked closely with the housing provider, who maintained the management and cleaning of the communal areas of the service.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure that people’s medicines were administered safely. Staff had received training in administration of medicines. Medicine care plans and risk assessments were completed to support this.

People were supported to have their prescribed medicines safely and in the way they preferred. Some people were able to manage all or some of their medicines. Others needed prompting or had their medicines administered. People told us that staff did this safely and effectively. One person said, “Staff order medicines and manage this very well.” Another person said, “They do help me with my medication and make sure I have it at the right time.”

Leaders had good oversight of the medicines they managed. Quality assurance audits and checks helped them to ensure safe practices. The registered manager also received daily electronic alerts to prompt them to address any issues and maintain consistency with staffs’ administration.