Foxwood Lodge Residential 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 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 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.

Staff and leaders reviewed accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns and used these to identify learning and improve practice. Learning was shared through team meetings, handovers, supervision sessions and positive behaviour support huddles.

Following concerns about staff practice, leaders reviewed incidents, investigated concerns and took appropriate action, as well as shared lessons learnt with the wider staff team.

Staff received training, coaching and regular supervision to support safe practice.

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Detailed pre-admission assessments were completed to ensure the service could meet people's needs safely. Staff ensured transitions were exceptionally person-centred. For example, some people had in place structured transition plans which included visiting the service and spending time with staff, before moving in.

There was a strong culture of collaborative working which supported joined-up care. Healthcare professionals gave highly positive feedback about transition planning and collaborative working. One professional told us, “Their planning, dedication and commitment ensured that [person] transitioned safely back into the community.”

The service supported people to move from more restrictive settings and, where appropriate, progress towards supported living through structured roadmaps and transition plans.

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.

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place, and staff had received safeguarding training. Staff understood their responsibilities and knew how to raise concerns.

Safeguarding concerns were appropriately referred, investigated and reviewed.

The provider promoted a culture where people, relatives and staff could raise concerns through meetings, feedback opportunities and access to a Freedom to Speak Up Guardian.

Where people had restrictions on their liberty and were unable to consent to these, the provider had sought appropriate legal authorisations and was monitoring any conditions on these authorisations.

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.

People were involved in decisions about how risks were managed. The provider used positive risk assessments, roadmaps, key worker meetings and post-incident debriefs to support people to understand and manage risks. People contributed to reviews of restrictions and goals linked to increasing independence.

The registered manager told us risk assessments were completed with people so they could identify risks and participate in decisions about how these were managed.

Positive risk-taking approaches supported people to safely increase their independence and achieve personal goals.

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

People lived in an environment which was safe, clean and well maintained.

Regular health and safety checks, environmental audits, fire safety checks and maintenance inspections were completed to identify and manage risks. Environmental risks were monitored through weekly walkarounds, daily checks and provider audits.

Bedrooms and communal areas were personalised and reflected people's individual preferences.

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.

There were enough suitably skilled staff to meet people's needs safely. People and relatives generally told us staffing levels were sufficient and staff knew people well.

Staff received induction, mandatory training, supervision and competency assessments. There was a stable staff team.

Recruitment processes were safe.

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.

People were protected by infection prevention and control processes. The home was clean and hygiene standards were maintained.

Leaders completed regular audits, walkarounds and monitoring checks to oversee cleanliness and infection control practices. There were cleaning schedules, laundry procedures and contamination risk assessments in place.

During our assessment, we found infection prevention and control arrangements were effective and did not identify any concerns.

Medicines were managed safely, and trained staff completed administration, monitoring and stock checks. However, improvements were required to ensure medicines management was consistently safe. We found some protocols for ‘as and when’ required medicines did not contain sufficient guidance for staff about when medicines should be administered. We also identified concerns regarding the storage of medicines, as records showed medicine room and fridge temperatures were not always maintained within required limits. Although leaders had previously identified these issues through audits, we continued to find concerns during the assessment. The registered manager responded immediately, reviewed systems and implemented additional monitoring arrangements and improved storage solutions to address these risks.