Critchill Court

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 service since it was registered to the current provider. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

All incidents and accidents were recorded and analysed. These were discussed with senior staff at monthly governance meetings and action was taken where appropriate to minimise further risks to people.

The registered manager listened to feedback and made changes where needed. For example, in response to issues being raised about communication and oversight, the manager’s office was moved to a more prominent position in the home. This enabled the management team to have better oversight of the home and made them more easily accessible to people and staff.

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 staff worked in partnerships with other professionals to make sure people received joined up care. We saw a compliment from a professional about how well staff had worked with them to reduce pressure damage for people.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. One person told us, “I feel safe here. All the staff are very kind.”

All staff received training in safeguarding and knew how to recognise and report any concerns. All staff spoken with said they would report any concerns to a senior member of staff. One member of staff told us, “I would report any abuse to a senior or manager, but I haven’t seen anything like that.”

The provider made applications for people to be legally deprived of their liberty where they required this level of protection to keep them safe.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Some minor improvements to record keeping were needed to show how risks to people were being reduced.

People’s care records contained risk assessments with control measures in place to minimise risks to the person. For example, one person was assessed as being at high risk in relation to nutrition. Staff were instructed to record all food and fluids offered and accepted. Records seen were not comprehensive and were not always fully completed. However, weight records showed the person was maintaining a stable weight.

One person we met had a pressure relieving mattress on their bed, but this was not recorded in their risk assessment. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us the equipment had only just been put in place. They gave assurances that the risk assessment would be updated.

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

There were safety checks of the building and equipment. All equipment, such as fire detecting and lifting equipment, was regularly tested in house and serviced by outside contractors.

Some people at the home were living with dementia. The environment was not dementia friendly. There was limited signage or things for people to interact with. Menu boards were handwritten without pictures, and the activity board was not showing the correct date.

People enjoyed the garden in good weather, but some people and visitors thought it would benefit from attention. One visitor told us, “The garden is very messy and more could be made of it so it would benefit residents more.”

The new provider had made some improvements to the environment, and we were told that further redecoration and refurbishment was planned. The registered manager said improvements would include making the environment more dementia friendly.

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.

People and relatives had confidence in the staff who supported them. One relative told us, “I have absolutely no problems knowing they are safe, the staff are all very good and know what they are doing.”

Staff felt there was usually enough staff to safely support people. People who liked to spend time in their rooms had access to call bells to enable them to ask for help when they needed it. People told us staff responded promptly when they used their call bell. One person said, “Oh yes they come quickly if I ring the bell.”

The provider had a robust recruitment process which helped to minimise risks to people.
 

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.

There were cleaning schedules and domestic staff in place to maintain cleanliness throughout the home. One person told us, “It’s always nice and clean and tidy.”

Staff used personal protective equipment when supporting people with personal care. People told us, and we observed, staff wore gloves and aprons to minimise the risk of the spread of infection when they helped people.

People received their medicines safely. If medicines were prescribed to be taken ‘when required’ there was personalised information in place to guide staff when these might be needed.

However, there were some improvements needed to medicines records. When handwritten entries were made to medicines record charts these were not always signed or checked for accuracy. This is good practice and included within the home’s medicines policy. There were a few gaps in people’s records where doses had not been signed for when they had been given. Improvements were also needed to the recording of medicines taken out and brought into the home, as detailed within the home’s policy.

Records were in place to show that individual risks had been considered for higher-risk medicines such as anticoagulants, and flammable topical preparations.

There were suitable arrangements for ordering, storage and disposal, including for medicines needing cold storage and those requiring extra security. Suitable temperature monitoring was carried out to make sure medicines were safe and effective.

Staff had training and competency checks to make sure they gave medicines safely. Any errors or incidents were investigated and reported, so that systems could be put in place to prevent a recurrence. Regular medicines took place which identified areas and actions for improvement.