Newbridge House

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Some areas of the home required redecoration, repair and decluttering. This included wallpaper that was ripped in communal areas, holes in the walls following a leak, and boxes stored on top of cupboards in corridors. The provider had some plans in place to address these concerns, and some areas of the home had already been redecorated or updated.

However, where needed, risks to the environment or premises had been considered and assessed. For example, checks were completed to ensure fire equipment was safe to use and in working order.

People and relatives were happy with their environment and did not raise concerns with us.

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.

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.

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

Improvements were needed to ensure all aspects of medicines were managed in a safe way. For example, 1 person was prescribed a patch for pain. The manufacturer’s guidance stated this should be administered to certain areas of the body and alternated in position. There was no guidance in place for staff to follow which contained this information and no records to show where this medicine was being administered. This meant we could not be sure this had been administered as prescribed and in line with the manufacturer’s guidance. We were told by the deputy and the registered manager no people were on ‘as required’ medicines. However, records showed 1 person was prescribed an ‘as required’ medicine and there was no guidance in place to support its safe administration. However, other people received their medicines as prescribed, and they were stored safely. People were happy with how their medicines were administered and did not raise any concerns.