Campbell 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. This is the first inspection 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 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Safety was a priority for leaders. The culture was an open one in which concerns could be raised by people, relatives or staff, knowing action would be taken.

Senior leaders met at quarterly meetings to discuss incidents and lessons that could be learned across the organisation. Staff meetings were used to cascade any changes that resulted from investigations or awareness of good practice.

People were involved regarding how their care should be planned and delivered to reduce risks and to increase staff knowledge. One person said, “It’s so lovely. If you have a problem, they sort it out or listen.”

Safety was a priority for leaders. The culture was an open one in which concerns could be raised by people, relatives or staff, knowing action would be taken.

Senior leaders met at quarterly meetings to discuss incidents and lessons that could be learned across the organisation. Staff meetings were used to cascade any changes that resulted from investigations or awareness of good practice.

People were involved regarding how their care should be planned and delivered to reduce risks and to increase staff knowledge. One person said, “It’s so lovely. If you have a problem, they sort it out or listen.”

Senior staff took the right steps to ensure people’s immediate safety was the priority. They raised alerts with the local safeguarding team if and when needed and ensured matters were resolved with the right outcomes for people.

People raised no concerns about their safety. Relatives similarly described having peace of mind that their loved ones were in a safe space. One person said, “If we need a member of staff they always come, even at nighttime.” People’s right to choose and to assess their own level of risk when going about day-to-day activities and outings, was respected.

There were a range of appropriate policies and training in place to support safeguarding, for instance recent scam awareness training. Staff were well trained in safeguarding principles and acted effectively when there were any concerns. The provider assured us they would revisit the regularity of customer forum meetings to ensure safeguarding was more regularly on the agenda so people who used the service could contribute to ideas in this area.

One external professional said, “It is evident from previous concerns raised where management at Campbell Court have collaborated with professionals to resolve concerns and achieve positive outcomes for people.”

There were systems in place to monitor risks and to update care plans and risk assessments when required. The majority of risk assessments were detailed, person-centred and effective. Improvements were needed to diabetes care planning and to one person’s medicines risk assessment. The provider was responsive to our feedback and made some immediate improvements.

People’s independence and right to choose was respected; safeguards were never restrictive. People and their relatives were involved in designing and planning care to ensure risks were reduced. The electronic records system used by the provider was working effectively on a day-to-day basis but there were opportunities to make the system more accessible to families. The system had this functionality, but it had not been fully explored at the time of inspection.

Staff were able to raise concerns when they needed to and worked well as a team to share information and escalate any concerns. The daily handover process was effective in ensuring staff knew about relevant safety updates for people.

The provider was responsive to signposting towards best practice we suggested.

Risk assessments of people’s environment were completed before they moved into the service. These had regard to people’s and staff safety. Where people smoked the service liaised well with the fire service to ensure advice was given to reduce risks. A number of people chose to smoke, and the provider recognised they could do more to liaise with the housing provider to alleviate the smell of smoke in some areas of the service.

People were supported to maintain their own flats independently. Staff were mindful of people’s strengths and limitations. Corridors were clear and communal spaces well maintained. People and their relative’s confirmed staff were respectful of their homes. The provider had constructed raised beds for people to enjoy gardening.

The provider had moved to an electronic call records system, which also contained evacuation and personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) information. They promptly ensured this information was available in hard copy formats, in case any visiting emergency services needed to access it.

The provider ensured the right professionals were involved if there were environmental factors or equipment that needed particular training or advice. One external professional told us, “Staff will make the referral to the team when they identify a need for occupational therapist involvement.”

Safety was a priority for leaders. The culture was an open one in which concerns could be raised by people, relatives or staff, knowing action would be taken.

Senior leaders met at quarterly meetings to discuss incidents and lessons that could be learned across the organisation. Staff meetings were used to cascade any changes that resulted from investigations or awareness of good practice.

People were involved regarding how their care should be planned and delivered to reduce risks and to increase staff knowledge. One person said, “It’s so lovely. If you have a problem, they sort it out or listen.”

People’s flats were clean and well maintained. They and their relatives raised no concerns about infection control. Staff used Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when needed and received appropriate training and support in this area.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to reduce the risks of people and staff catching and spreading infections.

People’s medicines were managed in a safe manner by staff who knew their medicines needs well. One person said, “I do my own medicines but they always check up on me.” Another said, “They always remember my medicines, 4 times a day.”

When people’s condition changed unexpectedly, staff thought through all possible causes, including considering people’s medicine and involved the right external clinicians.

Protocols were in place for people on ‘when required’ medicines, with clear instructions for staff. The electronic medicines administration system had seen a reduction in medicines errors.

Staff received regular competency checks of their practice in relation to medicines to ensure they were safe and confident.