Fennell 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

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 as 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.

The provider recorded Incidents and investigated them to identify any learning needed. Care plans and risk assessments were updated where needed and any actions required were monitored to ensure completed. Staff understood the actions to take when incidents happened and confirmed they had information about any learning shared with them.

Relatives said they were kept informed of any safety events, comments included, “They will let me know about any falls or anything.”

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 completed pre-admission assessments. They gathered detailed information about each person’s needs, preferences, and background and actively considered compatibility with other people living in the service. This process enabled the registered manager to make informed decisions and only offer placements where the service could safely and appropriately meet people’s needs.
 

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 a good understanding of safeguarding concerns and felt concerns would be acted upon appropriately; staff knew how to escalate concerns. Staff received training in safeguarding.
Relatives told us, “[Person] felt safe” and “[Person] felt safe yes, absolutely.”
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 that staff were working in line with Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (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 clear information in their care plans about how to manage any risks. People and their relative’s felt risks were managed safely. Staff told us they had enough information to help them support people safely.
We saw how one person was supported to go shopping with staff with a clear plan in place to change the level of support as the person became more confident whilst ensuring the person remained safe.
People and their families were involved in developing care plans and reviews, one family member told us, "[Person] has a care plan where it's all noted down and it's reviewed annually."
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The environment was clean and in a good state of repair. We reviewed records of checks carried out to ensure the premises were safe. Personal evacuation plans were in place. These had been regularly reviewed to reflect people’s support needs in the event of needing to evacuate the building in an emergency.
Risk assessments were in place and supported positive risk taking and were updated following any incidents and reflected in care plans.
People’s individual apartments were adapted to meet individual needs, for example, the provider had lowered all the furniture for one person in their apartment as they were small in stature.
 

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.

During our assessment, where people showed any signs of distress staff intervened without delay and were able to offer support to ensure the person's distress was reduced. Staff did not appear rushed and took their time with people.

One staff member told us, “There is enough staff, we have had some challenges with staffing and had to use a lot of agency staff but now much better.”
 

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 completed IPC training and understood their responsibilities for infection prevention and demonstrated good practice, including hand hygiene and maintaining clean environments. A cleaning schedule was in place for each apartment and communal areas, staff supported people to undertake cleaning tasks in their apartments.
Managers completed regular infection prevention control audits. These included audits of the environment, equipment, and staff spot checks.
An IPC health professional had completed an audit of infection control within the home and we were told, “They scored ‘dark green’ (very good) with only minimal actions being highlighted.”
 

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 stored safely and securely, and there was an effective process in place for managing and auditing access to the clinic room. Stock was managed well and the availability of medicines was good.
Protocols were in place for all medicines prescribed as ‘when required.’ These were person centred, and comprehensive with detailed information to support care givers on how to administer these medicines safely and when to seek further advice.
Care plans were in place to support people with their medicines and specific health conditions. These were comprehensive and person centred, focusing on the individual needs of people.
Training records were up to date for all staff administering medicines and competency assessments had also been completed to ensure staff administering medicines had the knowledge and competence to do so safely.