The Firs Care Centre

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 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People lived in a home where there was a positive culture. Concerns were listened to, and action was taken to learn and improve.

Minutes of meetings showed that where improvements were needed these were discussed with staff. This included giving staff information to reduce the number of falls people experienced.

The provider learnt from incidents and complaints to make sure improvements were made. For example, following a complaint about cleanliness new processes were put in place. At this inspection we did not identify issues with hygiene or cleanliness.

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.

Records seen showed that staff discussed people’s changing needs with other professionals when they moved between services. This included when they were admitted or discharged from hospital.

People lived in a home where they felt safe with their care and the staff who supported them.

One person told us, “Yes. I feel safe. The staff. Generally speaking, they are kind.”

Staff spoken with told us they had received training in recognising and reporting abuse. All said they would be confident to raise any concerns with a team leader or the manager. All staff asked, felt their concerns would be fully investigated and action would be taken to protect people if necessary.

The provider made applications for people to be legally deprived of their liberty where they required this level of protection to keep them safe.

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.

Care records contained risk assessments relating to individual risks and needs. Staff were following risk assessments. For example, one person’s care plan stated they needed support with their nutrition as they were assessed as high risk. The care plan stated they needed to be offered snacks and have their food intake recorded. Records were kept of food and snacks offered however, some gaps in recording were noted. This was discussed with the registered manager.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. However, some improvements were needed to ensure prompt action was taken when shortfalls were identified.

Regular checks were carried out to ensure the building and equipment were safe for people and staff to use. This included checking the fire detecting system, water temperatures and all lifting equipment.

We found that action had not always been taken when issues were raised by routine checks. The provider took action during the inspection to rectify these.

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.

The provider operated a robust recruitment system which helped to ensure staff employed were suitable to work at the home.

Staff felt there were usually enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff said shortfalls in staffing were caused by staff calling in sick and not always being able to be replaced at short notice. We discussed this with the provider who agreed to investigate how this could possibly be reduced.

Some people said they felt they sometimes waited a long time for their call bells to be answered. One person told us, “Occasionally it’s a bit too long.” Another person said, “I often have to wait. I never used to wait.” During the inspection visits we found call bells were answered promptly.

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.

There were cleaning schedules and domestic staff in place to maintain cleanliness throughout the home. One person told us, “Yes, it’s kept quite clean, no concerns, I am quite happy.”

Staff used personal protective equipment when supporting people with personal care. People told us staff wore gloves and aprons when supporting them and we observed this during out visits.

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

People received their medicines safely from staff who had received specific training to carry out the task. Clear records were kept showing when medicines had been administered or refused. This enabled the effectiveness of prescribed medicines to be monitored.

People told us they did not have any issues with medicines. One person told us, “They come around in the morning and they stay here until I have taken them before they go. I have something to drink.”