Central House

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 inspection for this service. This key question has been rated 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. There was a process for reporting and recording incidents or accidents such as those involving people coming to harm.Procedures for investigating incidents, such as falls or medicine errors, included what action was taken to keep the person safe. Records showed the management team followed processes to report and investigate incidents. They listened to people’s concerns and learned lessons to identify and embed improvements.

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.Information about people’s needs was collected before they started receiving support. The provider worked with external professionals and partners to help establish continuity of care for people, including when they moved between different services. The provider worked with people to make sure their preferences and wishes were understood.

The provider 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. People told us they felt safe when staff were present. A person said, “I feel safe from risks with the carers.”

Staff understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse and received training in safeguarding people. The registered manager ensured there were clear safeguarding systems and processes that protected people from abuse, neglect and discrimination.

The provider did not always work with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Assessments were undertaken to identify risks to people’s safety and determine the level of care they required. Risk management plans were developed to support people and mitigate risks to their safety. These covered areas such as personal hygiene, medicines, mobility, nutrition and risks related to their long-term health conditions. Assessments covered the areas of risk that needed attention. However, some assessments needed more information about the signs and symptoms of certain health conditions so that staff had this at hand to ensure they could take appropriate action without delay. We did not find evidence people were impacted by this or had come to harm and the registered manager told us they would update the relevant risk assessments.

People and their relatives told us they were satisfied with how the service worked with them to keep them safe. They confirmed they had been involved when discussing risks to their health and felt staff knew how to keep people safe. A person said, “The carers understand my needs.” People and relatives were confident staff had the skills to understand and manage everyday risks. A relative told us, “I think the carers look very professional and confident and well trained.”

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 service carried out an assessment of environmental risks in people’s homes during the initial stages of the person’s assessment to check if it was safe for staff to work and carry out tasks. This included fire safety and environmental hazard checks.

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 were deployed in the local community to visit people in their homes. They received rotas in advance and were clear about where they needed to be and when. Staff confirmed they had sufficient time to travel between visits, which helped them arrive on time and maintain continuity of care. A staff member explained, “I have enough time between visits and see the same clients.” A person told us, “The carers are fairly punctual.” A relative said, “I’ve had no reported issues of unreliability and never complained. The staff come on time.” However, some people told us staff could be late. A relative said, “Punctuality is not as great as I’d like it to be. The [the service] call to inform us if the carer is likely to be late.” We discussed these concerns around call times with the registered manager for them to look into.

Staff received an induction and training and were recruited safely. They had the opportunity to shadow other staff supporting people to help them get to know them and become familiar in practices and procedures. Staff told us they were well supported by the management team.

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. Infection prevention and control procedures were in place. Staff received training to help them maintain good standards of infection control. Staff told us they had access to sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE). A staff member said, “We have PPE and we follow procedures and have had infection control training.” A relative confirmed this and said, "There are no hygiene issues and the carers wear all the PPE and change their clothes after every duty of care."

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.People received safe support with medicines because staff were trained, monitored, and used systems that promoted accuracy. Some people did not require support with medicines but where they did, they told us staff were helpful.

The service used electronic medication administration records (e‑MAR) that prompted staff to administer, record, and check medicines safely. Staff accessed medicines instructions through their phones and logged any refusal or changes immediately. They said the system helped them avoid missed doses. Staff explained they contacted the office or GP if they had concerns or if a person refused medicines. Protocols for PRN (when required) medicines were in place.

Staff demonstrated understanding of safe medicines handling, including hygiene, consent, checking prescriptions, and recording accurately. Medicines competency assessments were held in staff files and reviewed during spot checks. A staff member said they were “confident” supporting people with medicines and understood procedures.