Hazel Lodge 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. 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.

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.

There were clear processes in place to demonstrate how learning was taken forward. We viewed incidents and accidents and saw these were analysed and acted upon. There were regular staff meetings and updates were shared with staff daily in handovers. There was a clear open learning culture.

Staff told us that the management team are supportive and there was a learning culture, "If there is an incident or if support is required, they are available 24 hours via on call."

One person told us, "Staff in general very pleasant, no reason to raise concern. Could do if I needed to as they are always very helpful and feel they would listen."

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.

The registered manager told us, how they carried out pre assessments. People were invited to the home to have a look around prior to moving in.

One relative told us, "[Registered manager] runs a really good ship. I was involved in care planning and staff know [Persons] likes and dislikes. No cause for concern."

Another relative told us about how they were involved in the pre assessment process, "We talked about their likes /dislikes, and they involved me as much as they involved them."

Community professionals told us, "Overall, I find the home to be well managed, friendly, and supportive of collaborative working."

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.

Safeguarding policies were in place and staff were confident in telling us about their safeguarding training and demonstrated their knowledge. Referrals took place accordingly.

People told us they felt safe. One relative told us, "Staff are amazing, all of them, not come across one yet that isn’t. They all know their names. Keypads to the front door, so people cannot get in unless they know they code or ring the bell."

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DOLs had been applied for and was monitored to ensure they remained relevant for individuals. There was a DoLS tracker in place and mental capacity assessments had taken place when required. Staff had specific training in MCA and DoLS.

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 had detailed risk assessments within their care plans. Staff were knowledgeable about how to support people and reduce or manage risks safely.

One relative told us, "The staff communicate any changes and are always available and visible."

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Maintenance checks were in place and well recorded. Any issues were actioned immediately, recorded and signed off by the manager.

One relative told us, "You can see the tables all laid up beautifully for lunch. Their room overlooks the sea, you can’t ask for better for that. They are on top of the cleaning and they change the bedding."

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. Safe staff recruitment processes were in place. Training records were viewed, and staff were up to date with all training. Staff were confident with the level of training they had received.

One person told us, "Staff always around but not intrusive. Quite pleasant." Another person told us, "The staff – they are very, very good."

One relative told us, "Staff are very good, helpful and cheerful."

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 were seen to be using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Regular scheduled cleaning was taking place, and routine infection prevention and control (IPC) audits were carried out. The home was clean and well maintained.

One relative told us, "The place is always so clean."

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. We observed a medicine round, and staff were knowledgeable about the medication they were administering. They asked people for consent and explained to each person what their medicine was for. Staff supporting with medicines had received appropriate training. Medicines were stored appropriately and audits took place.
One staff member told us, "We have regular training and I feel confident with the training I have had, we have yearly updates."