Hesslewood House 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 newly registered service under a new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 62 (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.

A relative explained, “If [person] has had a fall, or anything, they (staff) will go through plans with us and they’ll listen to me and my views.”

All safety incidents were appropriately investigated and reported. Staff felt comfortable to raise concerns, which were tracked and monitored. Lessons from these were shared with staff during individual supervisions and staff meetings, where appropriate. One staff member confirmed, “We do get feedback, through (the deputy manager) as a handover.” The provider had developed a new system to analyse all accidents and incidents, which would support more in-depth sharing of learning across the service and the wider provider group.

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.

Thorough assessments were completed before anyone moved to the service; this included those moving to the service for short periods of respite care. These involved people, where they were able, and relatives, where appropriate. Appropriate information was shared with other services when people were taken into hospital, for example.

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.

Clear systems were in place to ensure people were protected from abuse and breaches of their dignity. Staff were knowledgeable about the signs of abuse and felt confident managers would act on these. Appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were submitted and staff showed a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). One relative told us how the service had fully explained this process to them, saying, “I didn’t know about DoLS at all, so they (staff) sat with me and went through the process with me. They care about me too, that’s how I feel.”

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.

Risk assessments were written based on people’s needs. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible and care plans directed staff how to support people to do this. However, we found risks were not always monitored appropriately. This meant the service was potentially unable to identify hazards or deteriorating health appropriately. We discussed this with the registered manager who took immediate action to ensure effective recording was put in place.

Relatives felt staff knew people very well and were complimentary about how staff supported people when they were distressed. One relative said, “My [person] is just not an easy person. As far as I’m concerned the staff are just great at dealing with [them].”

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 had commenced a significant programme of refurbishment within the home, including ensuring people who lived with dementia were better able to orientate themselves. People had been involved in choosing how the home was decorated. One relative commented, “I think it’s going to look like a spa soon. [Person’s] room is always perfect.” Two people had requested sun-loungers to enjoy the sunny weather, which the home had immediately purchased.

However, we identified some aspects of the environment which required immediate attention to ensure people were kept safe. Whilst these areas had been identified by the registered manager they had not been prioritised effectively. These areas had been addressed by the end of our inspection visit.

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.

Robust recruitment practices were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff received an induction, training, checks on their competency and regular supervisions and appraisals. There were sufficient staff to support people safely. A relative told us, “If I am visiting it would be rare if we are not ‘disturbed’ by a [staff member], or someone bringing tea, or a domestic worker popping by. Heads pop in, head around the door to say ‘hello’.”

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.

Robust processes were in place to ensure the home was clean. However, we identified some records had not been completed recently. The registered manager explained some of the domestic staff were new and took immediate action to address this. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriate to the tasks they were completing and the support they offered. The home was clean, tidy and odour-free. A relative confirmed, “The place is spotless and clean always.”

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

Most people’s medicines were administered as prescribed. One relative explained, “[Person’s] medication regime has improved immensely. It is always administered on time, always. [Person’s] symptoms have definitely improved as a result.” However, we found instances of poor recording in recent documentation. For example, staff had not recorded where transdermal patches had been applied, and the time of administration had not been recorded on medicines where it was required to do so. We also observed the medicines room door had been left opened and was unattended and some eye drops were left on top of the medicines trolley.

We brought this to the attention of the registered manager who took immediate action to rectify these issues, including reviewing staff’s competency to administer medicines.

One person administered their own medicines and appropriate risk assessments were in place to ensure this was done safely and their medicines kept securely. Controlled drugs were well-organised, administered appropriately with thorough recording.