Astbury View

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.

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. Relatives told us they were informed if there were any incidents, but most confirmed there had never been any concerns raised. The registered manager told us they had a system in place to learn when things went wrong. Records confirmed all incidents and accidents were logged on the system and reviewed for any themes and trends and learning was shared with staff. Staff understood the actions to take when incidents happened and confirmed they had information about any learning shared with them.

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 provider had a system in place to support people to transition into the service. The registered manager described how people’s transitions were individualised to them to ensure a safe transition. Staff told us they had enough information to be able to support people safely when they came into the service. Relatives confirmed they were involved in the transition process and this was managed well. Where needed, other professionals were involved in peoples care and the advice given was included in peoples care plans and staff followed this.

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. People told us they felt safe at the service and relatives confirmed this. A relative told us, “[Person’s name] has lived here for a long time, and they are safe here, there has been no incidents or accidents in this period.” Staff could describe the signs of abuse and the actions they would take to report any concerns. The registered manager had a system in place to log any incidents and report them to the appropriate bodies. 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. The provider had a system in place to make applications for DoLS for people, and these were monitored to ensure new applications were made as needed. Care plans reflected the DoLS and staff understood this.

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. Relatives told us staff understood how to keep people safe and gave examples of how staff supported people safely. A relative told us, “[Person’s name] is not mobile at all and has to be hoisted to their wheelchair and to a shower chair for a wash.” Staff told us they understood how to support people to manage risks to their safety. Staff were able to describe how they managed risks relating to choking, skin integrity, Epilepsy, and moving and handling. Risk assessments and care plans were in place giving guidance for staff on how to manage risks and these were reviewed regularly.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities, and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People told us they felt the home was safe. Relatives told us the home was purpose built and had all the equipment, and facilities people needed to have their needs met safely. The registered manager assessed risks relating to the environment and had systems in place to check the building was safe. We saw fire safety was assessed, and equipment was in place and regular checks on equipment were carried out.

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. People told us they liked the staff and they were always there to support them. Relatives confirmed staff were always available and they felt they had the right skills to support people. A relative told us, “Staff get regular training on how to manage specific risks relating to [person’s name].” Staff told us they had an induction into their role and regular training was completed, records supported this. Staff received training, for example, in manual handling, basic first aid, dysphagia risks, health and safety and oral health care. The provider had a recruitment policy in place, and this was followed to recruit staff safely.

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. Relatives told us staff used protective equipment when supporting people and informed them of any incidents of infections at the home. Staff confirmed they had received training in infection prevention control and understood how to minimise the risk of cross infection. We saw staff used protective equipment when supporting people. There was a policy in place to support and guide staff on safe infection prevention and control practice.

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. People were observed receiving support with their medicines. Relatives told us they had no concerns about the support people received with medicines and could describe how staff supported people to take their medicines using individualised approaches. Staff told us they had received medicines training and how their competency was assessed. We saw medicines were stored safely, with checks in place to ensure this. Guidance was in place for staff on how to administer medicines safely and medicine administration records were in place and accurately completed. Staff had received additional training where required to enable them to administer specific medicines safely.