Haddon 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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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. The registered manager ensured thorough investigations of accidents and incidents took place to determine the actions that may be required to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Learning from incidents was consistently cascaded across the staff team. For example, when an accident occurred, the registered manager carried out a thorough investigation and implemented new ways of working to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. This learning was then communicated to all staff to improve practice and maintain safety. Staff confirmed communication was good and they were promptly informed of any changes in people’s care. The registered manager and provider had systems in place to ensure accidents and incidents were regularly analysed for to identify any emerging themes or patterns to improve the care provided.

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. People’s needs were thoroughly assessed prior to them using the service to ensure their needs could be safely met. Key information was sought from the person, their relatives and any external professionals involved in the person’s care to enable a positive transition into the service. Staff regularly liaised with professionals to ensure people were supported safely with their health conditions. For example, appropriate referrals had been made when staff had identified a person had lost weight and needed additional support with their diet.

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. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and understood how to report any concerns. The provider had robust systems in place to ensure safeguarding incidents were promptly investigated and reported. People and their relatives consistently told us the service was safe. One person told us, “Yes I feel safe, I get along with all of them [staff] and have everything I need.” And a relative told us, “[Family member] is 100% safe, they are really settled”.

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 which affected people's daily lives, were documented and known by staff. The management team monitored and regularly assessed these risks and took appropriate actions to ensure people received care in a safe and consistent way. We observed staff demonstrate a good understanding of how to support people positively with their known risks, for example staff were fully aware of who needed support with eating and drinking and who required modifications to their food and drink to reduce their risk of choking. We also observed staff positively support people living with dementia which was in line with their care plans.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The provider had systems in place to ensure the environment was regularly checked for any potential hazards. We reviewed the health and safety within the service and found this was regularly checked and compliance certificates were in place and up to date.

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, staff, and relatives all confirmed to us they felt the service was adequately staffed. Relatives told us they felt staff were appropriately trained. One relative told us, “Staff are hands on and seem well trained”. Another relative said, “[Staff] seem well trained and competent and [family member] is happy with the standard of personal care.” The provider followed safe recruitment processes to ensure people were suitable for their roles. This included undertaking appropriate checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and obtaining suitable references. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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 provider had systems and processes to ensure infection, prevention and control measures were regularly audited. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available throughout the service. The service had infection, prevention and control champions in place who had received additional training and was a point of contact for advice and how the processes in place were managed.

The provider did not always ensure medicines and treatments were managed safely. Staff had not consistently recorded outcomes following the administration of PRN (as-required) medicines, including whether these had been effective. We also found staff had not consistently followed the provider’s system for recording the application site of transdermal patches. The registered manager was aware of these issues and was taking action to address them. Medicines were administered by trained staff who received regular competency checks and observed practice assessments. Stock levels corresponded with the records in place, and regular audits of medicine administration records were carried out to support the management oversight.