Sackville Gardens

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 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.

Safety was a priority throughout the home and staff supported people to promote their own safety. Where things had gone wrong, learning was developed from these events, and this was then actively shared across the whole organisation to ensure wider improvements across all teams.Staff were confident in reporting any concerns and felt the management team would address these quickly and appropriately. They spoke of a positive learning culture, where there was no blame, only opportunities to develop.Accident and incident records were comprehensive, and the management team had good oversight of these through analysis to highlight any trends and patterns. This enabled measures to be put in place to minimise reoccurrence.

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.

Robust assessments were completed before people moved into the home. There were systems in place to facilitate safe transfers for people between care services. People’s needs were assessed holistically using information obtained from other health and social care professionals, relevant representatives and the person themselves. Care plans were detailed and provided clear guidance to staff on how best to support the person. Staff worked closely with external professionals, such as the mental health teams, to ensure people received safe care and treatment. Professionals we contacted spoke very highly of the communication from staff at Sackville Gardens.

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.

Staff had completed safeguarding and mental capacity training; they demonstrated a good knowledge of this and knew how to support people to remain safe. The provider had a safeguarding policy in place which was relevant and contained up to date information to guide staff correctly. The registered manager had identified and reported safeguarding incidents appropriately and had worked alongside the relevant agencies to develop safety measures for people as needed. Staff told us that they worked with the people they were supporting to ensure safety measures were personal and realistic to them. Where people had capacity and made some unwise decisions, staff continually reviewed matters with them to ensure they remained as safe as was possible.

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 had been undertaken and were detailed, person centred and provided detailed guidance for staff to manage these. For example, risks in relation to the deterioration in people’s mental health and what signs to look for were significantly detailed and documented. This enabled staff to get to know people and support them in keeping themselves safe and well. The management team had good oversight of these and conducted audits and quality assurance checks to ensure that staff practice remained safe. Risks associated with the safety of the environment and equipment were identified and managed appropriately. For example, fire safety checks had been undertaken regularly and people had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place. This contained clear details, including people who took medicines which caused sedative effects at night, as this meant they may need more support than during the day.

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’s needs regarding their environment had been assessed and measures taken to ensure this was safe. The registered manager had clear oversight with regards to environmental checks, and these were completed regularly. Where areas of redecoration or repairs had been identified, clear plans were in place to address these. People had personalised care plans in place regarding the environment which included relevant details on what levels of support would be needed at specific times.

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.

Staff were suitably trained and demonstrated a strong understanding of people and their needs. Specific training had been undertaken where needed to enhance staff knowledge of individualised needs people may have, for example, Hearing Voices training.There was a stable and supportive staff team throughout the home, which provided people with good continuity of care and allowed strong relationships to be developed. People spoke positively about staff and told us they felt they knew each other well. We observed numerous positive and respectful interactions.

Staff received regular supervision, which provided learning opportunities and professional development. Some staff had progressed into more senior roles through the support of this. Staff told us they were supported and found the management team approachable. One said, “We’re always learning, from people and from each other. There’s always something new to know”. The home had a comprehensive induction process in place for all new starters. Staff were recruited in accordance with safe recruitment practices, including robust pre-employment checks.

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.

Staff followed a number of measures to promote good infection prevention. Housekeeping staff maintained a consistent cleaning schedule of all areas of the home. We observed cleaning tasks being undertaken throughout our visit to the homes. Staff received training in infection control, health and safety and food hygiene. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE), and we saw them using this appropriately. Processes were in place to prevent the spread of infection, and the registered manager had good oversight of this.

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.

Medicines were administered safely. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible with their medicines and were supported to develop skills in managing medicines to enable them to move on in the future. Risk assessments around this were completed. These detailed the level of support people required and who was responsible for the ordering, collection, administration and disposal of medicines. There was clear guidance for staff in relation to medicines, including PRN (as and when required) protocols which detailed what to look out for to assess whether PRN was required. Medicine risk assessments also contained specific side effects of certain medicines and what action needed to be taken should a person begin to display these.

There was a medicine champion in place at the home. They took a lead in everything related to medicines, including auditing and spot checking for other staff. The champion demonstrated a robust knowledge of the medicine management at the home. The registered manager also had oversight of this. People told us that they received their medicines correctly with the support of staff and were positive around the opportunity to maintain independence with this where appropriate.