White Hill House 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.

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 72 (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 learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Records evidenced staff reported accidents and incidents where required. Systems were in place to identify patterns or trends and take action to avoid re-occurrence. This meant that people were protected from harm.

Staff said, “[Accidents and incidents] are reported through a process that investigates them and comes up with preventable measures. [They] are shared through safety alerts and handovers with the team. We [staff] are always kept informed. There is a no blame policy.” The service made Duty of Candour notifications to people and their relatives where required.

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.

Upon admission to the service, a holistic approach to care was followed to support people to manage their care with other providers. People were supported to register for local healthcare services, including arranging easy access to medicines. One professional said, “[White Hill House] are very easy to work with. I have never had any concerns.”

One staff member said, “We have regular meetings and handovers and are kept up to date when people’s needs change.” Relatives told us their loved ones were supported by staff who knew them well. People’s care and support plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained reflective of people’s needs. This meant staff were able to provide up to date information to healthcare partners when people’s needs changed.

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.

Policies relating to safeguarding and whistleblowing were in place. Staff had received training to enhance their understanding of how to protect people from any form of discrimination. They were aware of when and how to report concerns and were confident these would be dealt with appropriately. Staff said, “I have done safeguarding training. [I] gained knowledge about how to protect resident’s health, wellbeing, respect their rights and risk assess the environment every day.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this is usually through the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).The service was working within the principles of the MCA and managed DoLS applications appropriately.

People told us they felt safe living at the service. For example, one person told us, “Yes, I feel safe personally.” All relatives we spoke with told us they felt confident their loved one was safe. One person’s relative said, “Yes, I am sure they are safe. The staff are very attentive and provide good care.”

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.

People were mostly protected from the risk of harm. Records showed that risks relating to people’s mental health, medical needs, and social needs had been assessed and were being managed safely. A person experienced a safety event in which they injured themselves. The provider supported the person to take positive risks to continue their favoured activity, whilst placing additional measures in place to ensure their safety. This meant people’s wishes were met and were supported with their daily routines whilst remaining safe.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Some aspects of the environment did not fully support people’s safety.

We observed furniture partially obscuring a fire exit, meaning that people would be at increased risk of harm due to a delay in being able to leave the building safely. We gave feedback to the provider and they rectified this immediately.

Access to the garden was not suitable for those living at the home. The ramp access was not level and too steep which could cause harm to anyone using it. The provider was aware of the issue and gave assurances that the access ramp would be rectified.

The provider did ensure that equipment was checked regularly and adhered to safety standards. Electrical equipment was safe for use and had been PAT tested(Portable Appliance Testing) within the last year.

Relatives and external healthcare professionals did not raise any concerns about the living environment. One profession said, “The home is immaculately clean.”

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.

Robust recruitment systems were in place, with all required checks including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and references in place.

Staff told us they received regular supervisions and completed training to support them in carrying out their roles, such as safeguarding, moving and handling, first aid and fire training. Records evidenced that staff were compliant with their training. Staff undertook a comprehensive induction, completing shadow shifts with competent staff, before they supported people themselves. One professional said, “I was struck by how hardworking and caring the staff were to support residents.” This meant people received care from competent staff.

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 had systems in place to prevent and control the risk of infection. The premises were clean throughout with no malodours, and systems were in place to prevent and control the risk of infection. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was in place, and cleaning records were up to date and being completed. Staff had received appropriate infection control training. Professional and relatives said the environment was clean and they had no concerns about infection risks. This meant that people were kept safe from the increased risk of harm posed by infection.

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.

Robust systems were in place for the safe storage, administration and recording of medicines. Systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff received training and competency checks to ensure they had the knowledge and skills needed to manage and administer medicines safely.

One relative said, “I know [Person] are given the medicines that they need, when they need them. The staff are very good and will contact me if they are worried about medication and call the GP too. I am very happy with their system.”