Green Lane 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registeredservice. This key question has been ratedgood.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 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.

Accidents and incidents were reviewed to identify any patterns and trends. Outcomes were shared with the staff team during team meetings and or individual supervisions. This reduced the risk of reoccurring incidents which promoted safety to people.

Staff we spoke with knew how to report accidents and incidents, and the importance of keeping accurate documentation. A staff member commented, “We don’t have a lot of incidents. There are falls, complaints and the management talk to you about it, how to improve.”

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 were fully assessed prior to moving into the service. The home manager told us how they carried out face-to-face visits to where people were such as their homes, other care homes or at hospital, to ensure their needs were fully assessed.

Visiting healthcare professionals told us staff knew people well, which meant they provided clear information about people’s needs. A healthcare professional told us, “Green Lane do not judge; they accept a referral and view it in a person-centred way and are happy to do what they can to be flexible to support a person.”

Staff also completed referrals in a timely way when required, which ensured people received care at the appropriate time.

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.

Systems and processes were in place to assess risks to people and ensure they were safeguarded from avoidable harm or neglect. Staff completed safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs and risks, and how to keep them safe. 

Some people living at the home required a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) order. We reviewed how the provider was managing this and we found this to be appropriate.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. Relatives agreed their loved ones were safe. A relative told us, “I genuinely feel that it (care at the home) is 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.

Risks to people's care were assessed and well managed. Most risk assessments were detailed and ensured staff had clear guidance in place to support people safely. Staffing levels were adjusted to manage risks linked to people’s care and equipment was used as a risk reduction measure, for instance in case of risk of falls. This approach protected people from harm of known risks linked to their care.

Staff knew people well and we observed staff demonstrating a flexible, dementia friendly approach when managing risks. For example, a person who lived with dementia, required one to one support from staff to manage their risk of falls. We observed this person attempting to walk unsupported; staff quickly intervened to provide support. When the person said staff could go as they no longer needed their help, staff said “I am going the same way you are so we might as well just go together.” This relaxed approach was well received by the person and ensured their risk of falls continued to be well managed.

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 provider ensured the equipment used to support people such as lifts, hoists and fire systems was safe and regular checks were completed at the required intervals.

The home manager and operations manager told us about the work that had been done to renovate the home and the work that was still ongoing to continue to improve the quality and safety of the environment for people.

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.

During our inspection visits, we found there was enough staff to support people safely. We found staff were mostly well deployed to meet the needs of people. We observed staff to be attentive to people’s needs throughout the day. The home manager showed us the dependency tool used to assess staffing levels required. We reviewed staffing rotas and found these reflected the assessed needs of people.

People told us there were enough staff who responded quickly when called by people. A person said, “I am pleased, they (staff) know it, it’s a well-oiled machine. I am never waiting for staff, they are quick.”

Staff had received relevant training to do their jobs safely and their competencies were regularly assessed.

Regular supervisions were taking place, but records did not show staff's views or how their wellbeing was being supported.

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.

A relative told us, “The environment in the home is friendly, warm, clean and comfortable. It's meticulously clean, in fact.”

The provider had infection prevention and control policies and procedures in place. Staff had completed infection prevention and control training.

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.

Most aspects of medicines management were safely managed.

We found issues with the recording of application of prescribed creams on our first visit. We shared our findings with the home manager and on our second visit we found these issues had been addressed.

Medicine administration records (MARs) were used to record the administration of medicines and showed people were given their medicines as prescribed and at the right time. Staff showed a flexible approach to ensure people who lacked capacity to make decisions about their medication were supported to have their medication in the least restrictive way. For example, a person who lived with dementia liked to spend their time walking in the home. Staff supporting with them with their medication walked alongside the person at a slow pace while giving them one tablet at the time. This ensured the person took the medication they required without the need to implement other measures such as covert medication.

Staff were trained and were assessed as competent to administer medicines safely.