Hallmark Angmering Grange Luxury 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Since the last inspection improvement had been made with reporting accidents and incidents. These systems and processes were now being followed.

People and their relatives told us they felt supported by the staff team and felt safe. One person told us, “I’m a bit more independent than some, but I’ve never had any fears around safety here.” Staff provided support in a safe and calm way. Staff followed safety guidelines as required and were encouraged to report incidents. Staff we spoke with told us the processes they followed to record safety events.

Incidents and accidents were investigated and reported. Actions arising from incidents were transferred into care plans to inform staff how to reduce the risk of an incident happening again.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.
Since the last inspection improvement had been made with reporting safeguarding, accidents and incidents. These systems and processes were now being followed.
People we spoke with told us they felt safe. A relative told us, “It was a worry putting [my relative] into a home, but I’ve never had to worry since she’s been here.” There were posters displayed throughout the home advising people, visitors and staff how to report any concerns they may have.

Staff had been trained and understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. One member of staff told us, “I would speak to [manager] or [deputy manager]. They always listen and would follow up on anything I reported.” There was a safeguarding and whistleblowing policy that gave staff clear guidance to follow in the event they needed to refer concerns to the local authority. Referrals had been made to the local safeguarding team appropriately. The provider understood its responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had systems in place to ensure Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were submitted where necessary.
 

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.
 

Since the last inspection improvements had been made in relation to inconsistencies in the recording of repositioning of people.

People were involved in the management of risks, and staff recognised risks to people’s health and wellbeing. A relative told us, “They are very good with dementia, they’ve always kept my [relative] safe.”
Potential risks to people’s health and welfare had been assessed and risk assessments had been reviewed regularly. For example, for people at risk of falling, malnutrition or pressure damage. Records showed that staff recorded relevant care interactions accurately, such as when people were repositioned to reduce their risk of pressure damage. The provider also used technology to assess and manage risks. For example, where consenting, people had discreet motion sensors in their rooms, which monitored patterns in people’s movements. This helped assess risks to people around falling, whilst remaining least restrictive. This had a significantly positive impact and had reduced falls across the home by 60% in the last 4 months.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

Since the last inspection improvements had been made about feedback from staff in relation to staff deployment and management acting on concerns raised.

People told us there were enough staff, and they were responded to in a timely manner. A relative said, “There were a few issues with staffing, but that has improved now. I raised issues about the staffing and they definitely listened, so I can’t fault them.” During our inspection, staff attended to people promptly. Staff did not appear rushed and took their time with people. A member of staff told us, “There are enough staff now, and [manager] listens if we are short and gets agency staff in straight away.”

Staff had the skills to meet people’s physical and mental health needs. Staff told us they attended training specific to their roles, including medicines management and safeguarding people from abuse. Safe recruitment processes were followed. There was a process in place for staff to receive regular supervision. There was oversight of staff training at manager and provider level.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.