Clifton Gardens Resource Centre

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.

The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

During our last assessment we identified breaches of legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, premises and equipment and staffing. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer breaching these regulations.

This service scored 75 (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 ensured staff learnt when things went wrong. Staff reported and recorded all accidents, incidents and concerns. Managers investigated these. They made changes to the service when needed. For example, training staff or updating care plans and risk assessments. Staff discussed incidents with each other so lessons could be learnt.

The provider supported people to have safe transitions and pathways between services. They carried out assessments of people’s needs before they moved to the service. They liaised with other healthcare professionals to understand about people’s needs. A relative told us about a successful transition to the home. They said, “The home agreed to temporarily admit [person] and this was totally invaluable at a time of crisis. It took the stress aware knowing [person] was safe and [they] have settled well.”

Staff had created easy to access profiles about people’s needs, including their healthcare and communication needs. These were shared with other professionals to help ensure safe transitions to hospitals or other care settings.

The provider had systems designed to safeguard people from abuse. Staff completed training about safeguarding adults. They were able to describe different types of abuse and how they would respond to these. People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe and well cared for at the home.

Managers and staff had reported allegations of abuse and had worked with external professionals to investigate these and implement protection plans.

The provider requested legal authorisations where restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for people who did not have the capacity to consent to these. Decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests and for their safety.

At our last assessment, we found risks had not always been assessed, monitored or managed. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

Staff had assessed risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. Assessments were clear, personalised and included plans to reduce risk and harm. Risk assessments were regularly updated.

There were appropriate systems for fire safety, including checks on equipment, fire drills and clear evacuation plans.

Staff completed training to understand how to care for people safely. For example, how to help them move. The provider investigated any falls or accidents and referred people for extra help and support when they identified a further risk of falling.

At our last assessment, we found the environment was not always safe or well-maintained. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

People told us they liked the environment and garden. A staff member told us that improvements to the environment had reduced people’s agitation and allowed them to engage with their surroundings in a positive way.

The provider had made improvements to the building and garden. They had decorated and purchased new furniture. Staff ensured that cleaning products were stored securely. Staff carried out checks on the safety of the environment and escalated any concerns. We saw these were addressed and repairs made when needed.

People had equipment they needed to keep safe. For example, specialist beds and sensor equipment to alert staff to falls.

The provider was improving the garden to create new walkways and areas where people could relax. They were also developing part of the garden as a dedicated memorial garden.

At our last assessment, we found staff were not always deployed to meet people’s needs. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

The provider employed enough staff to meet people’s needs. They had reviewed staffing levels and increased these when needed. Staff told us they felt increases in staffing had helped to make their job more manageable. People using the service and their relatives told us they did not have to wait for care and staff were attentive. They thought staff were skilled. A person commented, “The care staff are the best thing about this place. They are very good.”

The provider had systems to ensure safe recruitment of staff. These included a range of checks. New staff completed an induction to the service and a range of training. They had regular training updates, competency assessments, supervisions and appraisals of their work.

At our last assessment, we found some areas of the building had not been sufficiently cleaned. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

The provider had procedures to help prevent and control infection. Staff completed training about this. There were cleaning schedules to help make sure the environment stayed clean. Staff were given personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons to use when needed. People living at the service and their relatives told us the home was clean. Their comments included, “There are no nasty smells here”, “There have been some changes recently and it is a lot cleaner and fresher” and “My room is pretty clean. If they have to do any cleaning, they wear masks and gloves.”

Managers undertook regular audits of cleanliness.

At our last assessment, we found medicines were not always safely managed. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed. There were systems for ordering, administering and monitoring medicines. Staff were trained and deemed competent before they administered medicines. Medicines were safely stored and recorded.

The provider had a system to monitor and audit people’s medicines on a regular basis. Improvements had been made because of this. Medicines related incidents were investigated properly with appropriate action plans. There were processes in place to ensure staff learned from these incidents to prevent them occurring again.