Plane Tree Court

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

People told us they receive good care. People’s medicines were not always recorded and administered safely. We have made recommendations to the provider regarding recording and administrating medicines to people. Following the assessment the provider took prompt action regarding the concerns we had raised. People’s risks were overall assessed and reviewed. Staff knew how to keep people safe and protected from 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.

People and their families told us they could raise concerns about their care and overall knew who to speak to. One person told us, “I would speak to a carer or someone higher up if I was worried.” One family member told us, “I never had to raise anything but would go to the manager. They are very approachable.”

Staff told us they could speak up and raise concerns. One staff member told us,” I would be happy to speak up and I have done it in the past.”

There were processes and policies to support a learning culture. We saw evidence of some learning and action undertaken for example following people’s falls. Areas of improvement were also discussed during staff meetings and during staff supervisions. The register manager promptly followed up on the concerns and areas of improvement we raised with them during inspection.

People told us they felt listened to. One person told us, “They are understanding and caring and they understand my needs.”

The provider had an overall good understanding of people’s risk and how to mitigate these. However, people’s risk assessments were not always comprehensive and person-centred when included in people’s care plans.

People told us they felt safe. One person said, “I’m happy here, I’m safe.” One relative told us, “I feel reassured my loved one is here, they are in safe hands. “

Staff received safeguarding training and had an overall good understanding of how to keep people safe and protected from abuse.” One staff member told us, “I would watch out for bruises on people and if I had concerns, I would go to senior or manager.” Another staff member said, “We have been given a number for safeguarding to ring if we have any concerns.”

Safeguarding was regularly discussed with staff during supervisions and meetings. The provider worked closely with the local safeguarding team. The registered manager told us they attended regular local safeguarding meetings to support organisational learning. One stakeholder told us, “I really think care home attendance shows their commitment to practice, learning, development and partnership working and contributes to delivering the best care.”

People told us they felt safe. One person told us, “I’m safe here.” One family member told us, “I’m confident my loved one is in good hands here.”

Staff overall had a good understanding of people’s risk and knew how to support them. People’s individual risks assessments were not always in place for example when people were administering their own medicines. However following the inspection, the provider had taken prompt action and this had been completed. Not all the people we spoke to told us they were involved in their care planning.

Facilities, equipment and technology were overall well-maintained. There were arrangements in place to monitor the safety and upkeep of premises. The registered manager completed regular checks of the premises. There were appropriate risk assessments in place when required, for example, we saw risk assessments in place regarding the work that was being undertaken outside the premises. There were contingency plans in place to be followed during adverse events for example during a power cut or adverse weather conditions.

Overall, there were enough staff to meet people needs. We received mixed feedback from people regarding staffing. One person told us, “The care is very reasonable, but they can be slow in responding.” Another person told us, “Carers are always up and down the corridor-I don’t wait long at all.” Staff were overall happy with the staffing levels.

However, some staff told us they would benefit from additional staff especially during busy periods of the day.

One staff member told us, “Some residents tell me that there should be two of me.”

Staff records demonstrated suitable recruitment practices. References were being sought prior to employment and gaps of employment were explored. Staff completed induction training prior to supporting people and staff received training to ensure they had the right skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. One staff member told us,” We get told about the training we have to do.”

Staff competencies were assessed and checked periodically. People told us that staff were trained. Some people told us that where English was staff’s second language there were barriers in effective communication. One person told us, “People, the carers, smile, but I don’t always understand what they say.” Another person told us, “The staff are lovely, but I can’t understand them at times, but I get through to them.” Poor practice was addressed promptly by the registered manager.

Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. One staff member told us, “I have supervision every 4 weeks “Staff meetings took place and there was also a daily “Flash” meeting held by the registered manager with all the heads of individual departments and staff were provided with a daily handover at the start of each shift.

There were appropriate policies and procedures in place to support effective infection control and prevention. Staff completed relevant training regarding infection control. People did not raise any concerns regarding infection control and prevention. One person told us, “It’s always nice and clean.” Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) when required and overall, we saw staff using it effectively. However, we also saw examples of poor practice. For example, we observed people’s individual slings were kept together on the hoist in the communal area. We saw staff members adding ice cubes to people’s drinks without wearing gloves. We told the provider about this who told us they would address this with staff immediately.

There was evidence of the provider’s oversight regarding infection control. The provider worked with the local infection control and prevention team and the feedback received was very positive.

Medicines were managed by staff who had been trained and had their competency assessed. Medicines were stored securely including powder to thicken drinks to prevent choking.

For time sensitive medicines prescribed to be administered at certain times, it was not always documented what time staff had administered the medicines so there was a risk they might not be given safely. For one person we found that balances on Medicine Administration Record (MAR) charts did not indicate that medicines had been given correctly. This meant we could not be assured that people received these medicines as prescribed.

For people who had their medicines crushed prior to administration there were not always written instructions available for staff to ensure these medicines were administered in an appropriate way. We have received evidence that this was requested from a healthcare professional after the assessment.

For medicines to be administered “when required” (PRN) protocols where in place, however there was not always enough information included to ensure that staff would be able to administer these medicines if needed. After the assessment we were sent evidence that PRN protocols had been updated.

For people prescribed medicines patches there was a record of where this was applied on the body, however for one person staff had not always followed the manufacturer’s instructions on rotating the location of the patch. After the assessment we were shown evidence that a new patch chart was in use to support correct application. People were supported to self-administer their own medicines if it was appropriate, however there were not always risk assessments in place and care plans did not always identify when someone was able to look after their own medicines. After the assessment we were sent evidence that this had been completed.