Forest 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.

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

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 service promoted a culture of openness, learning, and improvement. Detailed incident investigations were completed with clear outcomes communicated to staff to ensure lessons learned. Duty of candour was considered and followed as appropriate.

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 experienced safe care, with effective systems for managing risks and transitions. People and their families were involved in pre-assessments where appropriate. Staff told us that handover information for newly admitted people or re-admitted people was clear. Referrals to partners were made in a timely way.

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 were protected from abuse, neglect, and discrimination. People raised no concerns about their safety. Staff had completed safeguarding training and knew how to report abuse and were confident to do so. Safeguarding policies were in place. Referrals were made to the local authority where required and notified to the CQC as appropriate. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were made and monitored.

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.

Risk assessments and care plans were in place to manage risks and some involvement of people and their relatives was seen in care planning. Staff completed training regarding the management of risks including choking and moving and handling. Staff received alerts when specific interventions needed to be completed to ensure they were carried out as assessed to manage risk. For example, where people needed repositioning, alerts were sent prompting staff and if these were not completed as expected these alerts were forwarded to the management team for their attention. Records we looked at confirmed people received appropriate care interventions when needed. However, we saw that one person’s wheelchair footplates were not supporting their feet putting them at risk. We raised this with the provider during the assessment.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. Window restrictors were identified as potential risks at the start of the inspection; however, action has been taken to mitigate these risks. Pipes leading to some radiators were exposed and hot. Actions were taken to immediately mitigate these risks and further work was planned to further reduce the risk of harm.

The provider made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The environment was well maintained with a home improvement plan in place to further improve the premises. Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage emergencies. Equipment and the premises were serviced and monitored as required. Systems in place to maintain a safe environment were robust and responsive.

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 skilled staff to meet people’s needs. Staff felt sufficient staff were on duty. We observed call bells were quickly responded to. However, staff were not always present to respond to people promptly in the lounge area and a 1:1 staff member was observed leaving the person they were supporting to get them a drink. The provider took action to address this issue following the assessment visit. Staff were safely recruited. Staff felt supported and received induction and supervision.

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.

Risks of infection were managed and controlled. The home was clean and tidy. Suitable facilities and equipment were in place to enable effective infection prevention and control. Systems were in place to maintain and monitor cleanliness including cleaning schedules and a range of Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) audits.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Medicines were managed safely and effectively. Staff received training and their competency was assessed. Medicines were administered safely. Medicines were stored appropriately. Some creams had been stored in toiletries cupboards in corridors, but these were removed and moved to more appropriate areas for storage following our assessment visit.