Sleaford Hall 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. This is the first assessment 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, 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.

The provider had processes to learn from accidents and incidents. When accidents and incidents highlighted a change in people’s needs, reviews were completed promptly and additional support, such as increased staffing or mobility equipment, were arranged. Where the cause of any change was unknown, referrals were made to other agencies, such as GPs and community nurses, to investigate the cause and provide any additional support needed.

Updates about changes in people’s needs and risks were shared with staff promptly, to ensure people continued to receive appropriate support. This helped reduce any future risks and protect people from the risk of avoidable harm.

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.

The registered manager ensured staff provided people with care which reflected their needs and risks. When concerns about people’s health or safety were identified, they were monitored and agencies such as GPs and community nurses were contacted for additional support when appropriate.

When people received urgent care from emergency services or attended hospital, important information about their needs and risks was shared, to ensure healthcare staff could provide them with appropriate care.

The registered manager and 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 registered manager ensured safeguarding incidents were identified, investigated and managed appropriately. When required, they were reported to the local authority and CQC.

Staff completed safeguarding training and those we spoke were aware of their responsibilities if they suspected abuse or neglect was taking place.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Their capacity to make decisions about their care was assessed and when they were unable to express their views about their care, their relatives were consulted. This helped to ensure any decisions made reflected people’s best interests. When people were being deprived of their liberty to keep them safe, the registered manager made the necessary applications for authorisation to do this in line with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

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.

Staff supported people to stay safe and manage any risks to their health and wellbeing. People felt safe at the service. They told us, “I feel safer here than at home because I am being looked after and someone pops in all the time to check on me” and “I could not fault anything here. It’s lovely to feel that someone is looking out for me.”

Care documentation included detailed information about people’s needs and risks to guide staff on how to support them safely. Documentation was reviewed regularly and staff were updated about any changes promptly.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We found the service environment was safe and well maintained. Equipment was tested and serviced regularly and repairs completed when needed. Checks of the safety of the home environment, such as fire safety and water safety, were completed regularly, which helped ensure people were protected from the risk of avoidable harm. An action from a recent legionella risk assessment had not been completed and the registered manager assured us this was scheduled to be addressed shortly. Legionella is a bacteria found in water which can cause Legionnaires’ disease, a flu-like illness.

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.

People and relatives told us there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Staffing rotas showed the staffing levels set by the provider were usually maintained and where there was short notice sickness, senior staff assisted with providing care.

Staff were recruited safely, with appropriate checks completed before they started working at the service. They completed the training necessary to support people safely and meet their needs. They received regular supervision and support.

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.

Staff completed infection prevention and control (IPC) and food hygiene training and followed safe practices, including wearing personal protective equipment when appropriate. Infections were managed effectively and relevant agencies were informed when appropriate.

We found the environment clean and people told us they were happy with standards of cleanliness at the service. A person commented, “The home is spotless all the time and there is a housekeeping member of staff on duty on each floor every day.”

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

There were some positive medicines processes and practices in place. For example, treatment rooms were clean and stock levels checked during the inspection were correct. However, some improvements were needed. Parkinsons’ medication was not always administered to people on time and some PRN (as required) medicines information required more detailed instructions to guide staff and ensure consistency. We discussed these issues with the provider who addressed the issues shortly after our visit.

Audits of medicines processes and practices were completed regularly. We noted that some medicines audits highlighted the same issues over a number of weeks, suggesting these checks did not always ensure appropriate standards were being maintained. The provider was aware of this issue and was addressing it.