Frithwood 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. The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment and premises and equipment. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

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 systems to help staff learn from things that went wrong and to make improvements to the service. The staff recorded and reported all accidents and incidents. The management team investigated these. They organised staff meetings to discuss lessons learnt and to embed good practice. Staff confirmed this and we saw records to show these discussions. Some staff members were assigned additional responsibilities to help develop best practice and learning. For example, 1 member of staff had undertaken additional training to understand about falls prevention. They shared their knowledge with others to help reduce falls at the service. People’s relatives told us that staff let them know if people had accidents, apologised and explained what they were doing to put things right. We saw care plans and risk assessments had been updated following accidents and incidents.

The provider had systems to help ensure safe transitions and pathways between services. They carried out thorough assessments of people’s needs before they moved to the service. Staff told us how they monitored people’s wellbeing following a move to the service. This helped the staff make sure they understood their needs and could create person-centred care plans. People’s relatives told us moves to the service had been well managed. Staff created easy to access information about people’s communication and healthcare needs to share with other professionals when people were admitted to hospitals and when they had appointments.

The provider had procedures designed to safeguard people from abuse and improper treatment. The staff undertook training to understand providing safe care. They had training and information about recognising and reporting abuse. They were able to tell us what they would do if they suspected abuse. The management team led regular discussions about safeguarding to help embed staff knowledge. There were posters of information for people using the service, visitors and staff to help them know who to report concerns to. People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe. The provider had worked closely with the local safeguarding team and others to investigate allegations of abuse and to reduce the risk of harm. They kept records of safeguarding concerns. The records showed how protection plans had been implemented and followed.

The provider had requested legal authorisations where restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for people who did not have the capacity to consent to these. Decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests and for their safety.

The provider had systems to identify, assess and plan for risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. As part of the assessment process, they discussed potential risks with people and their representatives to gather their views. Risk assessments were detailed and included personalised plans to manage these risks. The staff regularly reviewed and updated assessments and plans. Staff had training to understand how to support people to move safely and how to protect their skin. Staff were able to explain how they supported each person. We saw risk management plans were followed and staff monitored people’s wellbeing. Systems for managing risk were holistic. For example, staff helped prevent people from falling by considering their individual health needs, cognition, medicines, mobility, sensory needs, clothing and footwear and the environment. They also supported people to improve their strength and balance through exercise. People told us they felt safely cared for.

The provider had created a safe and well-maintained environment. People’s rooms were personalised, and they had the equipment they needed to keep safe. People were able to bring their own belongings if they wanted. The provider helped people to decorate their rooms with personal pictures and photographs. People had access to items that were important for their emotional wellbeing and to meet their cultural and religious needs. Equipment was regularly checked to make sure it was safe and working. Bedrooms and communal areas were nicely decorated, clean and hazard free. The management team had considered colour schemes and artwork to meet people’s individual needs and to reflect best practice for dementia friendly environments. People had access to call bells. There was an accessible and well-kept garden. There was good signage around the home which included pictures and signs in different languages. The home was warm, well-ventilated and appropriately lit. People using the service and their relatives were happy with the environment.

Three bedrooms at the service were for double occupancy. These were offered to couples, friends or siblings who wished to share a room. The provider carried out assessments of people’s mental capacity and ability to make choices for shared rooms. Each person had their own space, equipment and privacy was maintained through curtains which were positioned across the room.

The provider employed enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. People and their relatives told us their needs were met, and staff were available whenever they needed them. Their comments included, “There are more than enough staff” and “There are plenty about.” Staff also felt there were enough of them and told us they did not have to rush. A staff member commented, “It is a relaxed environment, and we have time to speak with the residents.” We observed, staff taking their time when supporting people and providing care in a calm way. Staff were attentive when people needed help. People told us call bells were answered promptly. A person said, “If I want anything, even a cup of tea, I can press that button, and they come to see me.”

The provider had systems to ensure only suitable staff were recruited. They carried out a range of checks during recruitment and through their induction. Staff undertook a range of training and had regular supervision meetings and appraisals to discuss their work. The management team carried out spot checks, competency assessments and observations to make sure staff had the right skills and knowledge for their roles.

The provider had systems to help prevent and control infection. They employed domestic and laundry staff. There were schedules to help maintain cleanliness and regular audits of this. Staff had training about infection prevention and control and understood their responsibilities. Staff were provided with uniforms and personal protective equipment (PPE). People using the service and their relatives told us the environment was clean. Their comments included, “They keep my room tidy and clean”, “They are always sweeping and cleaning up” and “The staff wash their hands and wear gloves.”

The provider supported people to take their medicines safely and as prescribed. There were procedures for managing medicines in a safe way. Medicines were stored appropriately and safely. Staff administering medicines had suitable training. The management team assessed staff competencies and knowledge to make sure they were able to manage medicines safely. Staff kept records of medicines administration. The provider worked closely with doctors and other professionals to make sure people were receiving the rights medicines and these were regularly reviewed. Some people received their medicines covertly (without their knowledge). This had been assessed in their best interests and decisions about this had been made involving different healthcare professionals and people’s representatives. The provider had created comprehensive plans and risk assessments for people’s medicines including clear information about how and when to administer ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines.

The staff used suitable tools to assess and determine people’s pain to make sure they could administer pain relief to people who were unable to express pain using words when they needed this. Staff recorded and monitored pain relief and other PRN medicines to make sure these were effective and used appropriately.