Turner 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 continuously learned to help identify and implement best practices. A learning log was maintained to record incidents and accidents. Care plans were reviewed and updated after any incidents, and the reports were carefully examined to ensure appropriate learning took place. For example, following a recent fall involving 1 person.

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. Turner Home staff assessed people to ensure they were compatible before moving into the home. We discussed some recent assessments which had taken place, and the provider explained how they ensured people’s outcomes could be met. Then, if Turner Home could not offer placements for people, how they worked closely with the local authority teams to ensure this was communicated appropriately.

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. Everyone we spoke with, and their relatives told us they felt safe at the home. Comments included “Yes I 100% feel safe here.” Staff we spoke with described the correct course of action to take if they felt someone was being harmed or abused and had undergone safeguarding training. There was a safeguarding policy which was available in different formats to support people to understand it.

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. Risk assessments were detailed and informative. We did raise some information would benefit from further expansion, particularly around 1 person’s sensory need. However, the provider took this feedback on board and has since updated this care plan.

The provider effectively identified and managed potential risks within the care environment. They ensured that equipment, facilities, and technology were in place to support the safe delivery of care. Since our previous inspection, the provider has enhanced both the décor and layout of the home, while preserving its original charm and historical features to create a more homely and inviting atmosphere. People had access to spacious lounges, games rooms, therapy areas and expansive landscaped outdoor spaces. Environmental checks were carried out in accordance with regulatory requirements, and we conducted spot checks on a sample of certificates to confirm compliance.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. We observed there was enough staff to ensure people were safely taken care of. One-to-one support was in place were needed and staff told us they worked well together, even when the home was ‘busy’. Rotas showed there was enough staff, and the provider had significantly decreased their use of agency workers. Staff completed training in line with the providers training policy and were inducted and supervised in their roles. We did raise some minor improvements needed with regards to staff recruitment, as it was not always clear if staff had been recruited safely. We fed this back to the provider, and they agreed to undertake a review of their recruitment process and has since completed this.

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. The provider achieved a high score in a recent infection control audit conducted by the local authority, and we observed that hygienic practices were consistently maintained throughout the home.

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. We verified people were receiving their prescribed medications safely and that administration was carried out by appropriately trained and qualified staff. Medication management across the home was well-organised and effective. For those requiring ‘as needed’ (PRN) medications, detailed plans were in place outlining the circumstances under which the medicine should be administered and its intended purpose. Separate charts were maintained for people who needed support with topical treatments such as creams and ointments. Controlled drugs were securely stored in accordance with safety protocols.