The Pantiles Care Home Limited

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 home 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.

Health and social care professionals were complimentary about how the home worked as partners, sharing information to ensure people’s needs were met. Accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately and were discussed every morning, with staff. The registered manager had oversight of all accidents, incidents and events within the home on the electronic systems and this helped to ensure safe processes were followed when dealing with events. Lessons learnt were recorded on the system and the registered manager told us about a time where this led to a change in support, “a female resident who had a fall, had full capacity, staff now check the environment before leaving her alone, for any trip hazards. ”This meant the outcomes were improved for this 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.

People’s care and support was planned, and staff were able to still demonstrate they understood people’s individual needs.

People and their families said the home worked well with external professionals. Feedback from external healthcare professionals about the home was positive in terms of systems of care. A health care professional told us, “The care home is proactive in escalating same day concerns to our duty team and communicates promptly on the morning, if required. They are also highly effective in forward planning for residents’ routine clinical needs, which supports the efficiency of our weekly ward rounds.”

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.

Relatives and external professional agreed that people were safe at the home. A health care professional told us, “At present, I do not have any significant safeguarding concerns regarding people using the home. Any minor concerns that have arisen have been managed appropriately, with evidence of timely reporting and appropriate follow-up actions. This suggests that safeguarding procedures are understood and embedded in practice.” We observed staff supporting people in safe ways throughout the assessment. A relative told us, “She feels very safe. my loved one has significant needs and I see a wonderful level of care.”

Staff confirmed they had attended safeguarding training. Staff understood their responsibility to protect people from abuse and poor care. They told us how theywould report a concern and knew how to escalate safeguarding concerns to relevant external agencies if necessary.

Posters displayed within the home reminded people of the important points in relation to safeguarding. All staff received level 3 adult safeguarding training and minimum of level 2 children safeguarding. This training was refreshed every year.

The home was working within the principles of the MCA. The provider understood their responsibility in relation to safeguarding people’s rights and what would constitute a restrictive practice. DoLS applications were submitted to the local authority, and we saw that applications had considered the least restrictive ways and involved relevant partners in the decision-making process.

The home 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.

People’s needs were assessed and measures to reduce risks put in place. Initial assessments were undertaken to identify falls. People had individualised risk assessments and these covered multiple areas of their care and support. This meant records could be updated immediately when their risks changed. Records detailed how staff should work to ensure safety, especially when supporting people with individual health conditions. People were protected from avoidable harm and involved in balancing their freedom with safety. Competency checks were carried about out to ensure staff were implementing recommended practice in terms of risk management.

The home detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People told us they felt safe and their relatives told us steps were taken to keep people safe. People were safe from hazards in their environment. One relative told us, “[A person] has a cushioned matin his room, they have lowered his bed so if he falls out, he’s on the same level. There are no obstacles in his way and keep it clear and tidy for him. He has had falls as he tries to come out of the bed by him self, so the environment is made safer for him.”

The home had recently been redecorated and refurbished in parts, and one area was awaiting completion. There was a system in place to record and report maintenance issues. We saw equipment and utility checks were in place and closely monitored to promote safety. The home used external specialists and contractors to undertake some checks particularly where there was need for a specialism, such as gas and fire safety. We checked certificates were in place for all household checks carried out by external professionals. There were individualised personal emergency evacuation plans in place, and these were reviewed monthly.

The home 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.

We observed there were enough staff on duty to respond timely to people’s needs. Staff said staffing levels were safe and sufficient to ensure people did not have to wait for care when they needed it. Required staffing levels were calculated using a tool which looked at the average number of minutes of care a person required care for key activities. Staffing levels reflected the level that was calculated. Staff confirmed they were able to take appropriate breaks. They said they had time to spend with people other than when providing their care. A member of staff said, "We sit and talk with them, we have a laugh with them."

Staff said any vacancies, for example due to staff sickness, were covered by permanent staff doing overtime if possible. The registered manager told us the home had not needed to use agency staff for a long time.

Staff said team meetings took place monthly. Staff who could not join face-to-face, for example night staff, were able to join the meeting online. One staff member told us they talk about, "Any concerns, residents, staffing. If we have concerns, [registered manager] will listen to us." Staff told us they received monthly supervision from the registered manager. One staff member told us, "We talk about training, what we can improve, or if we need to change something about how we are working."

Staff had received sufficient training to support them with meeting people’s needs. Training compliance was good. Staff said they had received the training required to meet people's needs. Staff said training was a blend of face-to-face and online.

Staff were recruited safely into the home. This included, gaining references from previous employers, completing a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, and checking right to work status. 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 registered manager had plans to ensure clear reasons of the decision at interview would be recorded. The registered manager told us that when staff started employment, they were given time with them and also to shadow colleagues.

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

People, relatives and professionals told us the home was clean, hygienic and in good decorative order, this included people’s bedrooms. One relative told us, “It's extremely clean.” Another told us, “I don’t have any concerns. The rooms are spotless.” Our observations confirmed this feedback.

Staff received training in infection, prevention and control. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn correctly by staff. Infection control procedures and audits were in line with published good practice guidance. We observed good supplies of PPE around 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.

The provider used an electronic medicines administration recording system (eMAR).The member of staff took each person's medicines to them and returned to record administration on the eMAR system.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Where prescribed creams were used dates were written on packaging of when the medication was opened. Where ‘when required’ medication had been prescribed there was clear guidance in place as to when the medicine should be given. Where people had medication patches prescribed it was required that when placed on the body these should be placed on different areas of the skin for each occasion. A system was in place where this was recorded.

The medication room had a fan and an air conditioner on the floor. The registered manager told us the provider is investigating installing an air conditioner unit to ensure medicines are stored at a safe temperature. The medication fridge temperature was within the required safe range.

 There was a locked cupboard for the storage of medication and where medicines required additional storage precautions, these were in place.

There were safe processes in place for ordering, and disposal of medicines, with a locked cupboard available for medications to be returned. The returns log was checked and was correct. The member of staff carrying out the lunchtime medicines round wore a 'Do Not Disturb' tabard. This was to encourage those around them to allow them to concentrate.

Staff who were responsible for giving people medicines were trained and had their competency assessed and recorded. A robust programme of monitoring was in place to support the review of competencies.

An audit was undertaken by the pharmacist and it concluded, “I am very satisfied with level of service at Pantiles Care Home and the inspection highlights staff working towards best practice.”