Bos Y'n Dre

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 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.

Accidents and incidents were documented and reviewed by the registered manager to identify any areas of improvement or learning.

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 service had systems to share information with partners if people moved between care services. Hospital passports had been developed detailing people’s individual needs and preferences. This information helped ensure people’s needs could be understood and met in the event of a hospital admission.

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.

People were relaxed and comfortable in the service and enjoyed spending time with the staff team. Relatives said, “[My relative] always seems happy, I have no concerns” while 1 health professionals told us, “I believe [staff] always have the best interests of their residents at heart”. The registered manager had a good understand of local safeguarding processes and necessary contact information was readily available if needed.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, 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 appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met.

People’s capacity to make decision had been appropriately assessed. Where appropriate DoLS application had been made and conditions complied with. Where the service made decision on behalf of individuals who lacked capacity these decisions had been consistently made in the person’s best interests.

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.

Risks were identified and mitigated effectively. People’s care plan’s included clear guidance for staff on how to protect people from identified risks.

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

All necessary checks had been completed to ensure the safety of the service’s environment and utilities by appropriately skilled contractors. Firefighting equipment was available if required.

People’s bedrooms were decorated in accordance with people individual tastes and interests.

However, carpeting on the service’s stairs was becoming worn and in need or replacement to prevent trip hazards developing.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified and experienced staff to meet people needs. However, staff training had not been updated to ensure staff had an accurate understanding of current best practice.

The providers did not currently employ any staff and no new staff had been recruited since the last inspection. The care home was operated by a husband and wife team who lived in the service and provided care and support when required.

Both people who lived in the service had been there for over 20 years and staff had an exceptionally detailed understanding of their individual needs. Professional told us, “Both [people] speak very highly of their carers during any conversations we have with them”.

However, staff had not completed training necessary to ensure they had the skills and knowledge necessary to provide support in line with current best practice. Following feedback, the registered manager made arrangements for the staff team to complete additional training in risk assessment and learning disability care.

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.

The service was clean and the registered manager understood how to manage infection control risks. Personal Protective Equipment was available and used by staff when providing personal care. Cleaning schedules ensured all areas of the home were regularly cleaned.

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. Medicine Administration Records had been accurately completed, and people’s medicines were stored securely.