Wrottesley Park House 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 requires improvement. 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.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The registered manager spoke confidently about the positive learning culture that had been embedded within the home. They gave us examples of how safeguarding concerns and incidents were reviewed. They kept a log of these concerns which were reviewed and analysed to ensure lessons were learnt and changes made. Examples included when a person had sore skin, when a person’s catheter became dislodged and when changes had occurred following a medicines administration error. They told us information was shared with staff including through team meetings and records confirmed this. Staff told us they felt aware of changes and were involved with the process.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. This included reviewing preadmission information and completing a face-to-face assessment with people and those important to them. Where appropriate they offered people the opportunity to view the home.

People had care plans and risk assessments which were based on their assessed needs that were continually reviewed and updated when needed. These assessments were present in a format people could understand.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and relatives raised no concerns about safety. One person told us, “I feel warm and safe here. The carers make me feel safe and looked after. I’ve got company here, which I wouldn’t have living by myself. The security is good here”.

Staff told us and records confirmed they had received training and were able to tell us the action they would take if they were concerned. One staff member said, “It is making sure we protect people, I could report anything I was concerned about. I know the manager would act”. There were systems in place to ensure safeguarding concerns were identified, reviewed and investigated.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that when needed, DoLS were in place for people.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and relatives were happy with how their risks were managed. One person said, “They have a hoist to get me from my wheelchair into bed. I do feel safe when they hoist me, they know what they are doing”. Another person told us, “I sit on a shower chair when I have a shower. I just need 1 member of staff to help me. I feel safe in the shower”.

There was a system in place to ensure people had care plans and risk assessments that were reflective of their current needs. Care plans and risk assessments were developed individually with people and those important to them. They considered how people could be involved with this process and adapted this to ensure they were involved.

These plans considered people’s mobility needs, dietary requirements and any known risks such as falls. These were reviewed regularly or when changes had occurred.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

People looked comfortable in their environment and raised no concerns to us.

The environment had been adapted and decorated to meet people’s individual needs. Where needed any risks to the environment or premises had been considered and assessed such as fire safety. There were processes in place to ensure any risks were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

The provider had systems in place to ensure there were enough staff available to support people. However, people and relatives reported experiencing some delays in receiving care and support during busier times. One person said “I think there is enough staff. There’s always enough staff to take me to the toilet when I want. If they are very busy, I have to wait longer, sometimes up to 10 minutes, but for me that’s ok as it doesn’t happen often. They answer the buzzer quickly in the night. Another person told us, “You do sometimes have to wait longer for the buzzer to be answered when it’s busier. About 10 to 15 minutes. Not all of the time though, just when it’s busy”. Another person commented, “Sometimes I’m on the toilet too long waiting for a member of staff to help me off the toilet. It can be between 5 to 20 minutes.”

On the day of our inspection, we saw there were enough staff available for people, and they did not have to wait for support. The provider had implemented a dependency tool on each unit to work out the number of staff needed; they told us they did not count nursing staff as part of these numbers to ensure adequate staff were available.

Staff told us and records confirmed staff had received training. This included mandatory training and training that was specific to people’s individual needs, which included supporting people with a learning disability. We reviewed the training matrix, and this confirmed staff training was up to date.

Staff had received the relevant pre-employment checks before they could start working in the home to ensure they were safe to do so.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

People and relatives were happy with the cleanliness of the home. One person told us, “My room is very clean. They clean it every day.”

We saw the home was clean and people were protected from the risk of cross infection. There were housekeepers present during our site visit who were following a cleaning schedule. Staff told us and records confirmed they had received training. There was enough Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) available for staff and when needed this was used correctly. There were processes in place to monitor IPC to ensure concerns were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

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

People were happy with how they received their medicines. One person told us, “I have 3 tablets for my blood pressure. They bring me them every day. They don’t forget them”. Another person said, “I get medicine in the morning, they have never run out yet. They always have enough stock. I get it every day. I feel safe as the medicine keeps my legs from getting too stiff”.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were ordered, stored, monitored and administered safely. When people had ‘as required’ medicines there was guidance in place for staff to follow. Staff administering medicines had received training and their competency was checked to ensure they were safe to administer these to people. Checks were completed on medicines and the storage of these.