Houndswood House Care Home

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 the last inspection, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this inspection this key question has improved to 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 introduced 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.

Learning from previous inspections, accidents and incidents was noted and shared with the staff team. This was discussed at daily discussions, supervisions and team meetings.

Staff told us learning from inspections, events, complaints and updates was shared through meetings and training. A staff member said, “They are always telling us what’s going on.”

There was a monthly overview of all key events. This included accidents, monitoring of people’s weights, infections, skin damage and any complaints. The review of each area allowed for the management team to look for any trends and if there were any changes or actions needed as a result.

People and relatives told us the management and staff team asked for their feedback and took any action that may be needed. A person said they felt confident to speak up if needed. They told us, “I am happy to share anything with the manager.”

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 home was due to close following the provider’s decision to do so. Most people had moved out. The remaining people had move dates or were exploring options available to them. People and relatives felt the management team were supporting them through the process. A relative said, “Very supported from key members of staff and management.”

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, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider had shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Safeguarding concerns were processed, reported and recorded appropriately.

People told us they felt safe using the service. A person told us they would, “Oh absolutely safe here.” Relatives felt their family members were safe.

Staff told us they knew how to recognise, and respond to, abuse. Staff told us they would speak up and report concerns when needed.

Staff received training in relation to safeguarding people from the risk of abuse and information was available to them and displayed around the home.

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.

People had risk assessments based on their needs, and these gave guidance to help ensure staff supported people safely. These included pressure care management, falls safety and risks related to health care needs. Sensor mats, wheelchair lap belts and bed rails were also risk assessed and in place for people who needed them.

Records reviewed showed care was being delivered in accordance with people’s planned needs and risk assessments. We observed people being supported to transfer with equipment, staff did this correctly and in a way that promoted safety and comfort.

People were supported with eating and drinking. The chef was knowledgeable about people’s nutritional risks and how to mitigate these. For example, modified consistencies and fortified foods.

People and their relatives told us they felt staff supported them safely.

Staff told us they knew how to support people in relation to risks. Staff were able to tell how and why they supported each person we asked about.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment in many cases. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. However, there were issues with the water system, which were currently under review by external agencies.

There were control measures in place in relation to the issues with the water supply systems. There was a risk assessment in place. Some rooms had been closed based on external agency instruction. Alternative water sources were being provided for drinking, handwashing and personal care. Signage was displayed and fixtures in place to reduce risks.

Staff were aware of hazards and how to reduce these. Staff had attended health and safety training that covered fire and environmental risks, including the risks associated with the water issues. Staff had attended fire drills.

There were regular health and safety checks carried out to help ensure staff were working safely and aware of environmental hazards which included fire safety and firefighting equipment.

The home was well decorated and clean. There was a heatwave plan which was being managed well with air conditioning units, closing of curtains, appropriate use of fans and temperature monitoring.

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.

Most people had moved out of the home due to the planned closure. Those who remained at the service and who were able to communicate their views, told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. A person said, “They come when I need them.”

Relatives told us there were enough staff to help ensure people were supported when needed. A relative said, “It feels like there is a good ratio of staff and their care is personalised.”

Staff said there were enough of them to meet people’s needs. A staff member said, “Staffing at the moment is OK.”

Staff told us they received enough training and support to carry out their role. A staff member said even with the changes in the home, “Training and support still continues.”

We saw people received care when they needed it and staff were available to get drinks, do activities and chat with people.

We reviewed the training provided and saw this covered mandatory subjects. This included moving and handling, medicines, dementia awareness, falls management and pressure care. Staff told us their competency was checked.

The provider assessed, detected, controlled the risk of it spreading and managed the risk of infection in most cases. They shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly if and when needed. There was an ongoing issue with the water system which was being managed by the management team and staff using risk reduction techniques.

There were infection prevention and control (IPC) audits and checks in place to help ensure staff were following safe practice. Staff were seen using personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly and washing their hands.

Staff knew how to practice good IPC. A staff member said, “There is a lot of guidance around the water issues.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe in most cases and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People and their relatives told us people received their medicines in accordance with their needs and as the prescriber intended.

We checked a sample of medicines and their associated records. Records indicated that people received their medicines in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions. Where there had been gaps or errors prior to our inspection, the management team had raised these as safeguarding issues and learning events.

We reviewed a sample of audits and found these were checking the appropriate elements, such as quantities, entries and storage of medicines. Actions were in place where shortfalls were identified and these were signed off when completed.