Guiseley Manor 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. This is the first assessment 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 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 registered manager and deputy were proactive in seeking feedback and opportunities to learn and improve the service. One staff member told us that they had raised the issue of not receiving face to face training and most of the training being undertaken electronically, this was actioned and face to face training was arranged and the staff member stated, “we had an amazing intellectual face to face training held last week.”

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. People and families told us they were confident staff would act where additional advice and support was needed. One relative said, “This place is great. The staff are great and I am very confident in the care they give. I feel she is in the right place and her care is good.” A person who uses the service told us “I came here straight from the hospital; I am fine here. Most of the staff are very helpful. I wouldn’t swap [staff member] for anything, she is the best.”

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 when supported by the staff at Guiseley Manor. People and their loved ones told us, “This place is great. The staff are great, and I am very confident in the care they give. I feel [name of relative] is in the right place and care is good.” “The staff are nice, no problems at all.” The provider had policies in place, and we saw concerns were investigated to ensure lessons were learnt and risk was mitigated.

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. We observed discussions centring around the needs of the person, ensuring people had choice and where actively involved in decision-making, including about end-of-life care. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. One person told us, “I’ve been here for about a year now. I have no problem with the staff and if I use the buzzer, I don’t wait very long at all.”
 

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 meticulously clean and tidy, and people commented that domestic staff worked hard to maintain high standards of cleanliness throughout the building. Maintenance staff were on site and available to address matters on a day-to-day basis and systems for checks and external maintenance were in place and this included daily checks of the environment to identify any hazards which were addressed.

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. Staff recruitment processes were in place with relevant checks of staff’s employment history, character, right to work, and checks with the disclosure and barring service (DBS). Staff we spoke with were very committed and passionate about the work they did at Guiseley Manor. Staff told us “All the staff come together to care for the residents as priority. I’m proud of the care we give.” Relatives commented their loved ones where safe when being supported by staff, one person said, “I can only get there once a week now as opposed to the three or four times a week when she first went there last year. They are efficient at keeping her clean and well fed. [staff member] is absolutely amazing with them all. I hope they never leave! They are so caring and spend more time here than at home, so they are family.”

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. Shared areas of the home as well as people’s own rooms were clean and tidy. The home was clutter free. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriate to their tasks. People were supported to maintain good hygiene. Staff knew about infection prevention procedures which they followed to protect people from risk.

The service made sure that systems and processes to safely administer and store medicines were in place. However, some medicines records needed improvement including those for creams and medicines checks on admission to the home. Care home staff worked with other professionals to review people’s medicines needs. Checks were carried out to confirm people’s current medicines on admission to the home. However, on one occasion these checks were less well documented. An incident about the use of medicines on admission had also been raised with us previously. We also saw that regular verbal instructions to adjust the doses of a medicine for one person were not always recorded, increasing the risk of errors.

Individual written information supported the administration of medicines; however, we saw one example where a laxative was not recorded as being offered as frequently as described in the person’s plan. Information about the use of creams was also less well recorded and in need of review, to match with people’s current needs. People who were able and wished to self-administer medicines were supported to do so. Care was taken to help ensure that time sensitive medicines such as those for Parkinson’s disease were given on time.

Staff spoke positively about the home’s medicines training and managers completed staff competency assessments, and audits to help ensure policies were followed in practice. Medicines were safely and securely stored.