Sloe Hill Residential 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

People felt safe at the service. Staff knew how to recognise and report and any concerns about people’s safety and welfare.

People’s care was given in accordance with individual risks. Staff were seen working safely.

People and relatives felt there were enough trained staff to meet their needs.

Medicines and infection control was managed safely.

There was learning and actions from any incidents and accidents to help reduce the risks.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives felt they were kept informed about events and updates in the service, and they were listened to, with any needed actions taken.

Staff told us learning from events, complaints and updates was shared through meetings and handovers. A staff member said, “These [Incidents, events and complaints] are regularly talked about in staff meetings with actual examples shared.”

Learning was taken and shared with the staff team. This was discussed at handovers, team meetings and as part of day to day discussions. However, learning from a recent inspection at another of the provider’s locations found there was a need to address free standing alcohol gel as this could be a safety risk. For example, if it was ingested or near a heat source. While people living a Sloe Hill did not have the same complex needs as some people living at the other location, we found there was free standing alcohol gel and hand soap in the service and the provider had not taken advantage of the learning from their previous experience. The provider completed a risk assessment in the interim period and gave assurances that wall mounted dispensers were to be installed.

People and relatives felt the move into the service had been good. A relative told us, “From the start, the process of moving [person] into the home was managed exceptionally well. The comprehensive assessment conducted by the manager ensured a smooth transition.”

The local authority did not fund anyone living at the service so there had been no visits carried out. They had not received any recent information about the service. However, the provider worked with the local authority safeguarding team as needed. Healthcare professionals told us the team worked with them.

People received a preadmission assessment prior to moving in. Records were held on file and information was to be shared with healthcare professionals as needed.

People told us they felt safe. A person said, “I can speak up, not needed to, they listen, I feel safe.” Relatives also felt their family members were safe living at the service. A relative said, “I feel reassured that my [person’s] needs are fully supported, and he is safe in the hands of the staff.”

Staff told us they knew how to recognise, and respond to, abuse. A staff member said, “You can talk straight, and they (management team) take action. I know how to report internally, not had need to report outside. I would report if I felt nothing was done.” We discussed the safeguarding posters displayed in the home and external agencies they could report to. Staff told us they would speak up when needed.

Staff were kind in their approach and gentle when supporting people. They were relaxed and comfortable with staff.

Safeguarding concerns were processed, reported and recorded appropriately. Staff received training and information was displayed around the home.

People told us they felt staff supported them safely. A person said, “Everything is good, no worries.” A relative told us, “[Person] felt safe immediately and it was a relief, to them and us.”

Staff told us about risks to people and the action they took to help reduce those risks. For example, in relation to falls, dietary needs and pressure care.

Staff were working safely. We saw staff supporting people to move around safely, respond to calls for assistance and carry out regular checks. Staff ensured people were sat up when eating. There were sensor mats and call bells accessible for those who were able to use one.

People had individual risk assessments, and these gave guidance to help ensure staff supported people safely and were regularly reviewed.

People told us they felt safe and comfortable living at the service. They told us they enjoyed the facilities and could move around freely. A person said, “I have everything I need; they give me my (nurse call) bell.” People who were at risk of falls had sensor mats on the floor to reduce the risk of injury should they fall from bed.

Staff were aware of hazards and how to reduce these. Some staff had attended fire drills and practiced evacuation in the event of an emergency. Some staff told us they had not completed a fire drill. A staff member said, “I work [shift pattern] so not included in drills.” Records showed some staff had not been part of a fire drill. We asked this to be carried out as soon as possible and to ensure night staff also completed a drill. The management team gave us assurances and updated records to demonstrate this had been completed.

The environment was free from hazards and fire safety equipment was in place. People had access to call bells and the home was well maintained. Some people had sensor mats to help reduce their risk of falls. The service had various sitting areas and people could choose where they wanted to sit and spend their day. We observed people moving around the home and staff helping to reorientate them as needed.

There were regular checks carried out on the environment and equipment to help ensure the appropriate servicing was carried out and everything was in working order. However, a scheduled service in August 2024 for the fire alarm system, emergency lighting and nurse call bell, stated that some remedial work was needed. While this did not impact the full function of the system, this had not been fully completed. In addition, it was not clear if the February service for the fire alarm system had been carried out. We asked for a record of this work being noted and completed and we were forwarded an email, dated after our query, requesting a quote for the work. When we discussed this with the management team, they advised this had been missed and there was a plan now in place for more robust checks and following up of servicing. The registered manager advised it was an oversight, and they were committed to getting the work done. Following our visit, we received assurances the remedial works for all systems noted above had been completed.

We discussed with the management team the process and risk assessment regarding access to the kitchen. While people were given access to the kitchen as part of the homely environment, a risk assessment was not in place to ensure people were safe. These risk assessments were developed and sent to us following our assessment feedback.

People said there were enough staff to meet their needs. A person said, “Staff come when needed.” Another person said, “They pop in and check and see if I need anything.” Relatives said they felt there were mostly enough staff, and staff were trained for their role. A relative said, “Staff always respond promptly to the buzzer and if my [person] requests to be taken back to their room, they ensure [person’s] comfort and comply with their request.”

Staff told us there were enough of them to meet people’s needs in a person centred and timely way. A staff member said, “From my experience of working in other places in the past I can comfortably say staffing is a rare issue. During sickness and absence, we have regular team of agency (staff), and our management team also work on the floor with us. We are always fully supported. We always endeavour to deliver all the care that is required in a timely manner. However, in real life there may be odd occasions when some care may be delayed for rightful reasons. We always go and check on the safety of the resident and inform them of the delay and reassure them.”

A member of the management team told us there was a bank of staff ready to support the home as they admitted more people.

Staff felt they received enough training and support to carry out their role. A staff member said, “Lots of training, [deputy manager] is brilliant, sometimes does 1-1s (individual face to face sessions) and we have online too, [deputy manager] is on it about keeping it up to date.”

Staff were visible and prompt when people requested support. The 3 care staff on duty were carrying out all tasks in the home, which included providing care for people, housekeeping, activities and cooking. However we were told, and we saw, the registered manager provided support throughout the day. On the day of our visit, the staffing was suitable to meet the needs of people living at the home at the time of our assessment.

We reviewed the training matrix and saw training was completed and in date.

Recruitment was carried out through an online recruitment system which ensured employment checks were appropriately completed. These checks included criminal record checks, verifying applicants’ identities and written references.

People’s bedrooms and communal areas were kept clean.

Staff knew how to practice good infection prevention and control (IPC).

Staff were practicing good IPC in their day to day roles. We observed correct handwashing and use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

There were IPC audits and checks in place. This included assessing handwashing practice.

People received their medicines in accordance with their needs and as the prescriber intended. Staff were carrying out administration tasks safely and in a timely manner.

Staff responsible for managing medicines were aware of safe practice.

Systems were in place to help ensure the safe management of medicines. We reviewed a sample of audits and found these were checking the appropriate elements, such as quantities, entries and storage of medicines, and identified any actions needed. We discussed the need to ensure medicines names were accurate on body maps as well as medication records as one body map had a different name used for the same patch on a medication record. In addition, NICE Guidelines state it is good practice to ensure all handwritten entries to be countersigned to avoid a risk of error. This was not always the case on records we reviewed.