Rotherview

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 69 (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 did not demonstrate a proactive and positive culture of learning in order to improve people’s safety. The provider did not have a robust process in place to monitor or review incidents in the service. This meant it was not clear what actions were being taken to mitigate future risks to people and staff. Staff needed additional support and training around record completion to ensure accidents and incident were effectively reported and recorded.

The provider had not effectively analysed incidents to understand any underlying trends and themes.

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 worked with a range of health and social care professionals ensuring people received joined up care and support.

The manager worked with others to solve problems and make improvements. Regular contact was maintained with local authority social workers, GPs, and other professionals. Staff said they could reach health professionals when needed. Relatives told us they were informed about any changes in their loved one’s health and treatment.

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.

We raised safeguarding concerns following our assessment due to some issues with financial safety. Systems were in place to monitor people’s finances; however, further checks were needed to fully protect financial safety. Safeguarding systems were established and understood. Staff had good understanding of safeguarding procedures and were able to describe how to recognise and respond to signs of abuse, demonstrating awareness of their responsibilities.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care settings this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they supported people who were deprived of their liberty within the service. Applications to authorise deprivation of liberty had been made and followed up appropriately when needed.

The provider used recognised assessment tools to identify risks related to people’s care. Staff delivered care that met individual needs; however, improvements were required in assessing some risks when supporting people during periods of distress and where people made allegations. Care plans did not consistently include detailed risk assessments with clear guidance to ensure staff understood the actions needed to minimise risks.

At times, people displayed anxiety through challenging behaviours. One person lacked a comprehensive support plan to help staff safely and effectively de-escalate situations and support emotional expression. Others had appropriate plans in place, and staff followed the guidance provided.

The provider managed environmental risks effectively, ensuring equipment, facilities, and technology supported safe care. Regular checks were completed to required standards, and records were well-maintained. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were in place to support safe evacuation in emergencies. While most risks were assessed and mitigated, monitoring of legionella required further improvement.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure pre-employment checks were carried out and staff were recruited safely.Staff were deployed effectively to ensure people received safe care. Records showed that staff continued to receive training to perform their roles effectively. Staff also received regular support through supervisions and appraisals.

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 supported people in maintaining clean living environments and reducing infection risks. They had access to PPE and completed training in infection prevention and control (IPC), contributing to a safe and hygienic setting.

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.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Training and competency assessments ensured staff were confident in managing medicines.Medicines administration records were accurate and complete. The provider followed guidance for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines. Regular audits were completed.