120 Harrowdene Road

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 positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to and reported concerns about safety to managers who investigated and escalated safety events. Lessons were learnt to identify and embed good practice.

Accidents and incidents were logged and investigated. Staff discussed incidents in handovers and in meetings in a way which focused on openness and improvement. staff member told us, “ We discuss incidents in team meetings and look at what happened and what we could do better, if we need to go on further training then we do.”

The manager was open and honest throughout this assessment and implemented immediate improvements when shortfalls were highlighted.

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.

People were regularly supported to access appointments with support from staff to manage their health. There were clear pathways and guidance in place for people’s health and care needs, setting out when staff might become concerned about a person’s wellbeing and need to make a referral to a partner agency.

One health care professional who worked with the service told us, “Staff are proactive and escalate concerns early and know the residents very well.”

The provider worked with people including their families and health care professionals 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 and avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Some people had their liberty restricted without appropriate authorisations in place. The records we saw showed that the local authority had applied for Community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (c-DoLS) for people and these had been assessed, however authorisations had not been received by the provider.

The provider had systems in place to chase these authorisations, and records showed they did so regularly. Although this meant some people were not free to leave their home staff were there to support them when they needed to and this was captured in peoples care plans.

Staff understood what safeguarding meant and felt confident to raise concerns. They told us they would escalate issues promptly and believed leaders acted quickly. People and relatives said they felt the service was safe. A relative said, “I’ve got no concerns the service is safe for [relative].”

The service had clear safeguarding systems and processes to protect people from abuse and neglect. Staff had access to safeguarding training and the service’s policies advised them on how to respond if they witnessed poor practise.

Staff worked with people to understand and manage risks and were involved as much as possible in decisions about their safety.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 care plans and risk assessments that reflected their current needs. These plans considered all the needs of people including, management of oral healthcare, their preferred routines and how they ate and drank.These were reviewed regularly to ensure the information remained accurate and complete.

Staff involved people and relatives in decisions about their care, including choices about daily living, activities and personal preferences. Staff knew people well and used this knowledge to identify early changes or concerns.

The provider maintained a safe and suitable environment.They made sure equipment and facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

Staff explained that maintenance systems were in place and risks within the environment were addressed promptly to keep people safe. The staff team knew who to contact when people might benefit from additional aids or equipment.

We observed people’s individual rooms had en-suite facilities. The environment was nice and homely for people and included a large garden area where people were able to spend time with friends, family and staff.

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.

There were enough staff on duty and people’s needs were responded to promptly. We observed that staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and knew how to work in partnership with them to empower them to enjoy positive lives.

Staff were recruited safely and there was a stable staff team which ensured consistency. Staff members confirmed they had opportunities for training and development and they felt supported. Staff described a culture of positive teamwork, and relatives said staff appeared skilled and knowledgeable.

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.

The provider had a policy in relation to infection control and staff told us they had adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) in place.

A staff member told us, “We have enough PPE to use when supporting people with personal care, we never run out.” Staff had training in place such as infection control, hand hygiene and food hygiene.

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. Where people could not be involved their relatives were kept informed of changes.

Medicines were stored and administered safely by staff who had been assessed as competent to do so, meaning people received the medicines they need when they needed them.

There were clear checks on medicine management, for example monitoring of stocks to ensure people would always have a supply of the medicines they needed to support their health needs.When people had ‘as required’ medicines there was guidance in place for staff to follow.