Southbourne Beach 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. People told us staff supported them to keep safe and had helped to prevent them from harm and accidents, for example, by using specialist equipment. The service worked with people following an accident or incident to prevent a recurrence. Staff told us they were confident they supported people well and tried to find a solution if someone was having frequent falls. Daily, weekly and monthly monitoring and review meetings included learning from events within the service. This had supported learning and included reviewing events to identify themes and trends. Lessons were learned across the provider’s locations as information was shared. The registered manager had produced data from events into accessible formats for people and staff, this had included visual charts to illustrate data. Health and social care professionals were confident the service took a proactive response to adverse events. Records confirmed reviews were undertaken regularly and in accordance with the providers policy.

The service 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 their relatives told us they felt staff at the service communicated when required with health and social care partners, this had included nurses and GPs. Working relationships between the external professionals were established and operated effectively, feedback collected during the inspection was positive. The registered manager and staff expressed confidence with the external professionals and saw the value they provided to the people living at the service. Safe systems were in place to ensure information was shared as needed. The service produced a summary of people’s needs and requirements from their electronic care planning system. This meant there was a safe transition between services, such as, for a return home with support or an admission to hospital.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.People told us they were safe living at Southbourne Beach Care Home, they told us this was because they were able to seek assistance from staff when needed. A person told us, “Of course I am safe here, much safer than I was living at home. I've made friends here.” Relatives were assured their loved ones were safe, they told us they had confidence in the registered manager and staff to address any concerns promptly. A relative said, “Our experience has been very positive.” Staff told us how they would report any safeguarding concerns they had; without exception staff were certain the registered manager would take their concerns seriously. A member of staff said, “I've never had to raise a safeguarding, but I know without a doubt I'd be listened to here.” We observed staff working to keep people safe throughout our inspection, this had included supporting their movement around the home and with eating. Records showed all safeguarding referrals had been made as appropriate to the local authority. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place, when needed, to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. The registered manager had oversight of authorisations and people’s rights were respected.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.People told us risks to their general health and wellbeing were considered by the service. People had risk assessments in place for all their care and support needs. Assessments included the activity, how risky it was to the person, then safe ways of working for staff to reduce or remove the risk. Risk assessments were detailed on the electronic care planning system and were updated regularly or as things changed. Staff told us they had enough information available to them so they could work to keep people as safe as possible. We observed staff working within the risk assessments throughout the inspection, for example, when supporting people to move around the service. The provider’s policies and procedures underpinned the practices within the service in regard to the assessment of risk.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.People told us they could move around the service without restriction, and they felt safe. The home was accessible to people with level access to outside spaces. Staff understood how to keep people safe and had received training on supporting people to move safely. Staff told us when they reported concerns with the environment, these were addressed promptly. We observed the environment to be well maintained and there was a schedule of refurbishment and redecoration. Staff told us they were clear on their responsibilities to ensure a safe environment for people. Equipment and utility checks were up to date to ensure the service met with regulations. A dedicated member of staff was responsible for maintenance within the service, this had included the use of external specialists and contractors to undertake specialist checks as necessary, these included gas, water and electrical safety. A member of staff told us, “The registered manager is very proactive, they go everywhere, there is nothing in the building they don't know about or won't find which encourages staff transparency.”

The service 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.People told us staff were there when they needed them. Relatives were complimentary about staff skills and their kind approach to their loved ones. A relative told us, “There always seems to be enough staff around and someone available, they will take time to come and say hello and we use the opportunity for a quick catch up. They are all so friendly and we know our loved one is safe here.” The registered manager used a dependency tool which helped them calculate safe staffing levels to meet the needs of people. We observed staff to be busy in the service but were able to attend to people as needed. A member of staff said, “We are very busy but there is always enough staff, we work together and are a good team.” The service had an induction, shadowing and competency checks in place. Training was in accordance with good practice guidelines for staff who deliver care and support, this was up to date. Recruitment processes were in place and were strengthened during the inspection. Procedures were in place to ensure the required checks were completed prior to staff commencing their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Ongoing support was in place for staff consisting of supervisions and appraisals, records showed the conversations were two-way and detailed.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.People and their relatives told us they were satisfied with the cleanliness of the service. Staff received training in infection prevention and control. Dedicated housekeeping staff were employed and ensured the home was clean. We observed the home to be clean and hygienic. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager and provider with all aspects of hygiene. Staff at the service had supported the induction of staff responsible for cleanliness from the providers other locations. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn correctly by staff. Safe infection prevention and control procedures were in place and were supported by the providers policy. Infection control procedures and audits were in line with good practice guidance. Staff had plentiful supplies of cleaning materials, products, and PPE.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.People received their medicines safely in the way prescribed for them. Staff were knowledgeable about people and their medicines; they took time with them to make sure their medicine were taken correctly. Some people could look after their own medicines after it was assessed as safe for them to do this, and suitable arrangements were in place. Where medicines were prescribed to be taken ‘when required’ there was personalised information in place to guide staff when these might be needed. Risk assessments were in place for high-risk medicines such as anticoagulants and paraffin-containing preparations. There were safe systems for ordering, storage and disposal, including for medicines needing cold storage and those requiring extra security. Temperature monitoring was carried out to make sure medicines were safe and effective. Staff had training and competency checks to support them with administering medicines safely. Regular medicines audits took place, and we saw these had identified areas and actions for improvement.