Charnwood 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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Lessons had been learnt since the last assessment. Staff listened to concerns about safety and the management team investigated these. Lessons were learnt and shared at staff meetings. Staff said there had been a lot of learning since the last assessment and they felt this had improved the safety of the service. The provider had appointed an external specialist consultant to support them to make the required improvements. The registered manager completed an analysis of all incidents at the service, which they used to make improvements.

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. Staff had clear documentation on how to support people’s needs. This included documentation which could be used in the event of the person being transferred to other services such as needing to go to the hospital. We found care plans and their reviews were meaningful and accurate. For example, where a person’s mobility needs had changed this was clearly recorded along with the level of support required to support them safely. Staff communicated well with other professionals. Records clearly evidenced input from other health professionals. For example, we reviewed a care plan of person who required specialist nutritional support, advice had been sought from a specialist nurse and used to develop the person’s care plan. The local GP conducted regular visits and staff actioned any requests they made without delay. This meant people received timely care and treatment.

The provider had implemented new processes to ensure safeguarding concerns were reported and acted upon. We found staff reported concerns internally and recognised incidents as potential safeguarding concerns. However, whilst these were reported to the local safeguarding authority these were not always referred in a timely manner. This meant there was a risk, incidents could reoccur. We spoke with the provider about this, the provider acknowledged they needed to continue to embed new safeguarding processes with all staff at Charnwood. We reviewed an analysis of safeguarding concerns and this was now shared with the wider staff team. People told us they felt safe living at Charnwood, a person we spoke with said, “I feel safe, it’s the way we’re looked after.”

Staff worked with people to understand and manage any associated risks. Staff supported people safely which was in line with their assessed needs and wishes. Staff told us they had received further training since out last assessment which increased their competence to support people safely. We found staff had clear guidance in place to support people safely. For example, we reviewed records for a person who became distressed, there was a detailed care plan in place. We found triggers and risk reduction measures were clearly documented. This protected people from the risk of harm. Meaningful reviews of people’s care needs meant staff had accurate information on each person’s needs. We found staff responded quickly to people who were at risk of falls, we observed people to be supported safely in line with their needs. For example, we observed staff to support people using a hoist. This was done so with kindness and in line with guidance. Staff knew people well and documented their daily needs well. A new system of monitoring people’s fluid and nutritional intake had been implemented since our last assessment, a member of the management team monitored people’s intake daily. This protected people from the risk of malnutrition and dehydration.

The home environment was safe for people, relatives and staff. Equipment was well maintained and regularly serviced. This included equipment used to transfer people safely such as hoists. Parts of the home that could cause harm to people, such as cupboards storing cleaning equipment, the sluice and medicines room were locked and secure. This helped to keep people safe. A recent visit by the Fire Service had highlighted some areas for improvement to ensure the home was safe for people, staff and visitors. An action plan was in place which addressed many of these issues with plans in place to complete these improvements. This helped to keep people safe.

Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. People received care from kind and experienced staff who knew them well. A person we spoke with said, “It’s the staff who keep us safe.” Whilst we received mixed feedback about the number of staff on duty, we found no evidence to support a lack of staff. Staffing levels were determined by assessing people’s individual needs, staff rota’s we reviewed demonstrated there were always enough staff on duty. Recruitment processes were followed to ensure only suitable staff were appointed. Checks including, interviews, references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were conducted before staff started working at the service. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.