Minchenden Lodge

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 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 positive and open culture of safety where staff, relatives and people felt able to raise concerns and were confident these would be acted upon. Relatives told us communication was timely and transparent when incidents occurred. One relative explained, “Staff ring me on every little thing,” following changes in their family member’s wellbeing. Another relative described how staff noticed their family member had a swollen wrist and arranged a hospital assessment promptly.

The provider had processes in place to gather feedback and review concerns. Relatives told us they were invited to attend meetings where they could raise issues. One relative said they raised an issue with staff and they “called me and asked if I noticed a difference”.

During the site visit , people told us they would speak to staff if they were unhappy and felt concerns would be addressed. We observed staff working closely together throughout the day and responding to people who required reassurance or support in communal areas.

The provider had processes in place to support safe transitions and continuity of care when people moved into the service or when their needs changed. Relatives told us staff had a good understanding of people’s needs following hospital discharge. One family member said, “The transition was good, they knew all the medical requirements from the hospital.” Information about people’s health needs and treatment was shared with staff and relatives, including updates following GP visits or changes to medicines.

Relatives also described how staff recognised changes in people’s wellbeing and sought additional healthcare input where required. This included contacting emergency services following falls and supporting referrals for further monitoring, such as blood tests.

Staff worked with relatives and external professionals to help ensure people continued to receive appropriate support.
 

The provider had systems in place to help protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff demonstrated an understanding of safeguarding procedures and were aware of how to recognise and report concerns. Relatives consistently told us they felt their family members were safe living at the home. One relative said, “I believe [my relative] is very safe here, they are on top of [my relative’s] health needs which is what keeps [my relative] safe.”

The provider worked with relevant professionals where safeguarding concerns arose and shared information appropriately to support people’s safety. Where people were subject to restrictions on their liberty, the provider had sought appropriate authorisations under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Records showed decisions had been made in people’s best interests and were kept under review. This helped ensure people’s rights were protected while maintaining their safety.

Management maintained records of safeguarding concerns which detailed the nature of the issue, actions taken and outcomes. These systems supported oversight of incidents and helped ensure appropriate responses were implemented. Staff demonstrated awareness of how to escalate concerns within the service and to external professionals where required.
 

The provider involved people and their relatives in recognising and managing risks in ways that supported safety and independence. Information about people’s needs and potential risks was recorded in care plans and risk assessments to guide staff on how to provide safe support.

Relatives told us staff kept them informed about changes in people’s mobility and wellbeing, and discussed measures to reduce risks. One relative explained staff were “constantly thinking” about how to support their family member safely, including reviewing the use of a walking frame and considering whether additional equipment, such as a bed rail might be needed.

Relatives also described how staff encouraged people to remain mobile while providing appropriate support. One family member said, “[My relative] uses a walker and staff go along with him,” which helped maintain confidence and reduce the risk of falls. Others told us staff monitored health risks, such as infections and increased fluids when required. During the site visit we observed staff supporting people with standing aids and walking frames in a coordinated and patient manner.
 

The provider managed risks within the care environment to support people’s safety and wellbeing. During the site visit we found communal areas and bedrooms were clean, tidy and free from clutter and unpleasant odours. Relatives also spoke positively about the environment. A relative commented, “Whenever I come in, it is always spotless.” Bedrooms were personalised and well maintained, helping people feel comfortable in their surroundings.

Environmental adaptations were in place to help reduce risks. We observed keypad-controlled access to staircases, clear signage and contrasting doors which supported people living with dementia to move around the home safely. Staff were visible in shared areas throughout the day, providing supervision and reassurance where required.

The provider had arrangements to monitor the safety of the environment and equipment used to support people’s care. During the site visit we observed staff using mobility equipment, such as standing aids, appropriately and working together to assist people safely. Access to outdoor spaces was also available, allowing people to spend time in the garden in a safe and supported way.

The provider ensured there were enough staff available to support people safely and meet their individual needs. Relatives told us they were reassured by staffing levels and the visible presence of staff in communal areas. One relative said, “I visit the home at different times throughout the day and this has reassured me about the level of staffing, and support is so good; I come at all times of the day and there are always enough staff around.”

Staff worked together to support people safely and respond to their needs. Relatives spoke positively about the continuous presence of familiar staff, which helped people feel settled and confident.

The provider had arrangements in place to ensure staff were suitable for their roles and had the knowledge needed to provide safe care. Recruitment processes included appropriate pre-employment checks, such as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, verification of identity and obtaining references.

This helped ensure staff were suitable to work with people and reduced the risk of unsafe recruitment. Staff received training and guidance from senior staff and the manager, and information about people’s needs was shared to support consistent approaches to care.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Systems were in place to help prevent and control the spread of infection. During the site visit we were asked to use hand sanitiser on entry to the home and observed good hygiene practices throughout the day. Communal areas, bathrooms and bedrooms were clean, tidy and free from unpleasant odours. Relatives spoke positively about cleanliness, with one telling us, “There are no smells at all.”

We observed staff supporting people with personal care and at mealtimes in ways that reflected infection prevention practices. For example, staff supported people to maintain hand hygiene before meals and protective items, such as bibs, were used where required. Staff ensured tables and surfaces were clean. People were offered drinks regularly to support their hydration.

The provider monitored the cleanliness of the environment and equipment used to support care. During the site visit, we saw fresh, ironed bed linen being prepared and bedrooms maintained in a clean and organised condition.
 

The provider made sure medicines were managed safely and met people’s needs. Systems were in place to support the safe administration and management of medicines. Relatives told us they were informed when medicines were reviewed or changed, which helped them remain involved in people’s care. One relative explained staff contacted them when the GP had visited or when prescriptions were updated. Another relative said, “Medication given regularly, none missed, they always phone when GP called out or prescription changed.”

During the site visit we observed medicines were stored safely and securely, and administration records were clear, complete and contained no gaps. There was guidance in place for ‘when required’ (PRN) medicines to support staff to administer these appropriately. Where medicines were administered covertly, appropriate assessments and best interest decisions had been completed. Staff had received training and competency assessments to ensure they could administer medicines safely.

Relatives told us medicines were given as expected and said staff monitored people’s health needs closely.