Cabrini House 1 (Diagrama Healthcare)

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 inspection we rated this key question Good. At this inspection the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

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.

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

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

There were systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. The registered manager and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. Staff told us any safeguarding concerns they raised would be managed appropriately. A person using the service said, “The staff are polite and nice, and I feel safe here.” A relative said, “Our loved one is looked after, they are safe and well-treated.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether any restrictions on people’s liberty had been authorised and whether any conditions on such authorisations were being met. We found that people were consulted and supported by staff to make choices and decisions for themselves. Staff were aware of seeking consent from the people they supported and had received MCA training.

There were systems and processes that protected people from avoidable harm. People received safe care from staff who understood and managed risks effectively. A staff member told us how they supported people at risk of choking and with medical conditions such as epilepsy. They told us they helped a person to eat safely by cutting up their food, supporting the person to use a small spoon and by not offering them chewy meats. Where people were at risk of seizures, they followed the persons care plan and stayed with a person whilst they were in the bath.

People had individual risk assessments in place relating to for example falls, road safety, bathing and showering, shaving, swimming, cooking and eating and drinking. They also had individual emergency evacuation plans in place which highlighted the level of support they required to evacuate the building safely in the event of an emergency.

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

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. We observed there were enough staff deployed at the service to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. A person using the service told us, “There is always plenty of staff during the day and at night, I feel safe here.” A staff member told us the registered manager had made a difference since they started working at the service, staffing levels had improved.

The provider had safe recruitment procedures in place. Staff files showed all necessary pre-employment checks were completed before staff commenced employment. These included checks on employment history, references from previous employers and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Staff completed training in areas relevant to peoples care and support needs. We saw a training matrix, this indicated that staff had received training on epilepsy, diabetes, fire safety, health and safety, first aid, food hygiene and moving people, safeguarding adults, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had also received Oliver McGowan training; this was a training program aimed at improving the care and support provided to autistic people and people with a learning disability.

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.