Wanderers House

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.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The manager spoke confidently about the learning culture of the home. They gave us examples of how incidents, accidents and safeguarding concerns were reviewed to ensure lessons were learnt. They told us about the action they had taken following an incident with medicines and provided a comprehensive report which supported this. This included how they could ensure consistency in practice, actions they needed to consider in relation to staff training and competency and the learning for the people they supported. Staff told us information was shared with them from the manager and felt involved with all aspects of the home.

There were systems in place to ensure lessons were learnt to ensure good practice was continued.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. Where necessary face to face assessments were completed and people had the opportunity to visit the home and meet the other people who lived there. In some instances, staff had supported people in their previous environments before moving to help get to know them. People had care plans and risk assessments which they had developed, which were based on these assessed needs that were continually reviewed and updated when needed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People felt safe and confirmed this to us. When asked 1 person replied, “Yes”.

There were systems in place to ensure safeguarding concerns were identified, reviewed and investigated. Staff told us they had received training and were able to tell us the action they would take if they were concerned.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found no concerns and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place for people when needed.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and relatives were happy with how their risks were managed and when we asked people, they told us they felt safe.

The manager told us they worked with people and those important to them to ensure care plans and risk assessments were in place, were individual and specific to people’s needs and regularly reviewed and updated.

We viewed people’s care files and found these care plans and risk assessments were in place. They considered the diets people had, how they mobilised, how they may present if emotionally distressed, and any known risks they had.

There was a system in place to ensure people had care plans and risk assessments in place that were reflective of their current needs. These were reviewed regularly or when changes had occurred.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

People looked comfortable in their environment and raised no concerns to us.

Where needed any risks to the environment or premises had been considered and assessed for example, checks were being completed on water temperatures and fire risk assessments were in place. The manager told us they were aware improvements were needed to the kitchen area and there was a plan in place for this.

The environment had been adapted and decorated to meet people’s individual needs, this included in people’s bedrooms where they had been involved with the refurbishment of these. There were processes in place to ensure any risks were identified so that appropriate action could be taken. This included equipment people used to mobilise being reviewed weekly to ensure it was safe to use.

The provider had systems in place to ensure there were enough staff available to support people.

People and relatives were happy with the staff that supported them. A relative confirmed when they visited the home there was always plenty of staff present.

We saw there were enough staff available to support people in line with their assessed needs and staffing they had been allocated. The manager told us they were working with professionals to review the current individual hours people were in receipt of.

Staff told us and records confirmed staff had received training. This included mandatory training and training that was specific to people’s individual needs, such as epilepsy and dysphasia training. We reviewed the training matrix, and this confirmed staff training was up to date.

Staff had received the relevant pre-employment checks before they could start working in the home to ensure they were safe to do so.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

People and relatives were happy with the cleanliness of the home. One relative told us, “Yes everything is fine, it’s just like a home.”

Staff told us and records confirmed they had received training. There was enough Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) available for staff and when needed this was used correctly. There were processes in place to monitor IPC to ensure concerns were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People and relatives were happy with how medicines were managed. One relative told us, “I leave that all up to the staff they know what they are doing.”

People received their medicines as prescribed. When people had ‘as required’ medicines there was guidance in place for staff to follow. We saw medicines were stored safely and checks were completed to ensure they were accurate. Staff administering medicines had received training and their competency was checked to ensure they were safe to administer these to people.