Kelstone Court Nursing 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 since it registered under a new provider.

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.

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

The provider recorded any incidents and accidents that occurred which included details of the incident and the action taken and the outcome. The provider took appropriate action as required such as notifying the relevant healthcare partners.

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.

Information was obtained from people, and others involved in their care, about people’s individual needs and risks they might face before they moved into the service. This was used to develop care plans for people, supporting them to received safe and appropriate care.

A healthcare partner told us, “Kelstone Court were responsive when arranging placements with them.” Another said, “We place at Kelstone Court regularly, they are very responsive in terms of referrals and arranging assessments and accepting residents into the home.”

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.

People using the service, and their relatives told us the service was safe. Comments included, “Yes, I feel safe” and “I have no concerns (about safety).” The atmosphere remained pleasant and relaxed. People looked at ease and were comfortable interacting with staff throughout our onsite assessment.

Managers and staff understood how to safeguard people. Staff knew what safeguarding meant and how to spot signs of potential abuse. A member of staff told us, “Safeguarding is protecting someone from harm, it can be either physical or emotional. I would raise the concern to the manager or the nurse in charge.” Training records showed staff had received safeguarding training which meant they understood their responsibilities with regards to safeguarding.
 

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 clearly documented and updated regularly. Risk assessments included those for nutrition, mobility, falls, pressure sores and other relevant areas. Where people had been identified at being at high risk, management plans to reduce the risk were included in associated care plans.

Staff were familiar with the risks that people might face and the steps they needed to take to keep people as safe as possible. One relative told us, “My [family member] is unable to walk and vision impaired so they help him.” Another said, “They have provided my [family member] with modified chair to help her to stop falling.”
 

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

People lived in an environment which was homely and comfortable. The provider was in the process of refurbishing parts of the home, including the communal areas and people’s bedrooms. This included taking steps to make the environment more ‘dementia friendly’, by using colour contrasting doors and walls or memory boxes near people’s bedroom doors. A memory box is a container placed outside a person’s bedroom that holds special objects that are important to a person, such as photographs or ornaments. The introduction of these visual clues would help people living with dementia orientate themselves and identify rooms that were important to them. Relatives told us, “They are doing a lot of work on the building, new toilets and painted downstairs.”

Regular checks were completed by managers and staff to maintain the safety of the care home’s physical environment. These included regular health and safety checks on the homes electrical, gas and water systems, and equipment used to support people, such as mobile hoists.

A health professional said, “I visit the home regularly – and always find it clean, and residents well presented.”
 

The provider 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.

There were enough staff employed to keep people safe. Our observations on the day and feedback from relatives supported this. Comments included, “There are enough staff, they are in the lounge at least overseeing the residents.”

Staff files contained evidence of robust recruitment checks including application forms, interview records, employment references, right to work and identity checks.
Records showed staff received an induction to their role and ongoing training to ensure they could meet the needs of people using the service.

A member of staff told us, “The training here is good. They training includes videos which is helpful” and “He’s very good manager and we work very well as a team here.”
Staff had the opportunity to discuss work related issues during individual supervision meetings and annual appraisals.
 

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.
People lived in a clean, hygienic environment. The care home looked clean and was free from offensive odours. Hand washing stations were available throughout the home, including the entrance and hand washing guidelines were on display
Staff knew the processes to follow to minimise the risk and spread of infection. Training records showed staff had received training in infection control and were also assessed as being competent in this area and in relation to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
Staff had access to PPE to help them reduce infection.
Staff maintained cleaning records to provide a clear audit trail of measures taken to reduce infection risks.
 

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of medicines management, including consent, covert medicines and administering medicines that were needed ‘as required.’

Medication Administration Records (MAR) were in date and signed by staff.

Medicines were stored correctly in lockable cabinets and were in date and labelled correctly.

Records showed that staff received medicines training and were required to undergo competency assessment.