Badgers Holt Residential 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 first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 81 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service had a system in place for reporting, reviewing and analysing incidents and accidents. The manager told us lessons learned were reviewed and information shared with staff through handovers to prevent recurrence. People’s care plans and risk assessments were updated regularly.Staff told us they were aware of procedures to report and record incidents.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and were confident they would be listened to.

Health and social care professionals were complimentary about working with the service. One professional told us, “We believe this level of engagement and professionalism is commendable and contributes significantly to the wellbeing of the residents at Badgers Holt.”

The service 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.

People and relatives confirmed people were supported to attend health appointments as necessary.

Staff understood when to contact healthcare professionals. A staff member told us, “The service has regular contact with multiple outside professionals from weekly MDTs with the GPs and Pharmacy to regular Occupational Therapist visits and twice weekly District Nurse visits as needed to name a few. All are very involved in the care of our service users as it is required.”

Summaries of people’s needs, information on their allergies, diet requirements and medical needs were available in case of an emergency hospital admission. The information was kept at the service and taken with staff when people accessed community. This supported safety and continuity of care, even if the hospital admission happened outside of the service.

Health and social care professionals were complimentary about working with the service. One health and social care professional told us, “I have been working with Badgers Holt Residential Home for several years, they are very flexible and have a high standard of continuity of care. They seek guidance and support at any opportunity to provide a high standard of care and will endeavour to address any concerns/changes required for patient care.”

The service was proactive in securing referrals to Occupational Therapist. This meant the mobility and other aids supporting people’s independence could be obtained without a delay. This had a positive outcome on people’s lives.

The service worked with people and health and social care professionals to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

People told us they felt safe living in the service, which was confirmed by relatives. Comments included, “I feel safe”, “Very safe. [The person] is very independent. As far as I know staff respond to call bells”, and “We hit the jackpot, [person] is very safe.”

Staff told us they felt they could raise concerns with the manager and felt confident actions will be taken. A staff member said, “If I have any concerns, I would speak with the senior on shift and also inform my manager as they are approachable and always ready to listen. We also have feedback forms in the office.” Staff were aware they could report any concerns they had externally to the local authority or CQC.

We observed kind and respectful interactions between staff and people.

The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately and had established safeguarding procedures in place. Staff received training in safeguarding and the provider had a safeguarding policy in place.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interest and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care services, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. All legal applications had been made in accordance with DoLS. This meant people’s rights were fully respected.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff knew people well and responded to people’s risks in a person-centred way. Staff told us of how they supported people at the service. The information about people’s needs was kept on the electronic system used by the service and available to staff.

A staff member said, “I always ask permission and tell people what action I am taking before doing it. But first, whenever possible, I offer choices to encourage independence.”

We observed staff working safely with people. A relative told us, “We feel [the person] receives safe care at the service.”

Risks to people had been identified, assessed and managed. Individual risk assessments identified potential risks and provided information on how to reduce the risk of harm to people.

The service was fully aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People told us they liked living at the service. A relative said, “The home is lovely.”

Staff told us they knew how to request new equipment or report maintenance concerns when necessary.

There were effective arrangements to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises.The service used external contractors to undertake some of the environmental checks such as gas, electrical and water hygiene.Other checks were done by an in-house facilities manager who oversaw regular audits of equipment and systems. This ensured systems remained in working order and reduced the risk of harm to people.

Safety measures were in place at the service. These included covers on the radiators and window restrictors.All the equipment seen during the inspection was checked by qualified professionals and well maintained, including hoists and medical beds.

We observed the environment to be free from obvious hazards and designed in a way that supported people. Signs to support people to orientate themselves around the service were clear and visible. When appropriate people had personal display cabinets for the safe keeping of recognisable, personal memorabilia outside of their bedrooms.

Bathroom doors were designed to ensure people’s safety and allow staff to gain access if required in case of an emergency.

The outside space was well maintained and designed to allow people private space to celebrate special events with their family members, such as birthdays. The space was used to hold events such as themed days for all people in the service to enjoy.

People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place to provide information on how people would need to be supported in the event of an emergency at the service.

The service 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.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the staff who worked at the service. Comments included, “I've never seen any problems”, “[Person] seems very relaxed and comfortable and happy with all staff members”, and “I do recognise all the staff and majority by name. They all welcome me when visiting and are all very professional. They all have good manners and a sense of humour and very caring.”

We observed staff supporting people in a calm and relaxed manner. Call bells were answered promptly.

Staff told us they felt supported by the manager. A staff member said, “I have always felt supported and heard by management and feel valued and able to provide high quality care to our residents.”

Records showed staff’s performance was checked outside of normal working hours. This meant there was oversight of care delivery across a 24-hour period.

Recruitment procedures were in place. Staff received training relevant to their role and had one to one supervision meetings.

Some staff had the role of a ‘champion’ within the service. This meant staff members took on a specific role to improve the quality of care in a particular area. For example, the service had a dignity champion.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People were supported in an environment that was clean and hygienic. A relative told us, “The service is definitely clean.”

A staff member told us, “Everyone that comes to live at Badgers Holt, are entering a lovely clean and friendly environment. Each person is given the respect and dignity that they deserve and are treated like family.”

On both days of our inspection, we observed the service to be free of clutter and clean. A dedicated housekeeping team worked to maintain cleanliness in all areas of the service. Personal protective equipment was available for staff to use when needed.

The provider had an infection control policy in place and staff completed relevant training. At the time of the assessment the service held a food hygiene rating of 5 which meant hygiene standards were very good and fully comply with the law.

Information about the risk of infection was shared appropriately with relevant partners.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with how medicines were managed and raised no concerns. A relative said, “I have confidence that a staff member wears a medication tabard when doing medication rounds that identifies her job at the time. This also indicates to visitors to ask other members if we need assistance so the medication staff member can concentrate on her role.”

Staff confirmed they had medicine training and ongoing competency assessments.

We observed staff supporting people to take their medicine.

Medicines were recorded on a computerised system used by the service. Creams were dated when opened so staff knew when to dispose of them. Medicines and creams were stored safely.