Seacroft Green Care 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.

This is the first assessment for this 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 provider completed a learning from safety incidents audit, which demonstrated that staff were knowledgeable about the actions required in response to accidents and incidents, including reporting, recording and escalating concerns appropriately.

There was evidence of reflective practice and ongoing review of care delivery, with staff and managers using incidents as opportunities to identify learning and drive improvements in practice.

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.

Pre-admission documentation was in place within people’s care records and supported the assessment of needs prior to admission. Care plan reviews were completed regularly and reflected people’s changing needs, helping to ensure continuity of care and safe transitions between services.

Records demonstrated relevant information was gathered and reviewed to support effective care planning and ongoing monitoring, enabling staff to respond appropriately to changes in people’s health, wellbeing and support requirements.

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 completed safeguarding training and were able to describe their responsibilities for identifying, responding to and reporting safeguarding concerns. People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service. A relative said, “Yes, [Person] is safe here.”

The service had systems and processes in place to identify, assess and monitor risks associated with people’s safety and wellbeing. Staff demonstrated an understanding of safeguarding procedures and knew how to escalate concerns appropriately.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff worked within the principles of the MCA, and DoLS were managed to ensure any restrictions or limits on people were the least restrictive possible and were in the individual’s best interest.

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's needs and risks were regularly reviewed and monitored to ensure care remained responsive to changing circumstances. Care records demonstrated ongoing evaluation of care needs. Where concerns had been identified, interventions had been implemented, reviewed and updated accordingly.

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been identified and assessed. Risk management plans reflected people's individual circumstances and provided clear guidance for staff to support safe and consistent care delivery.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

During the inspection, we observed some aspects of the environment required maintenance. We found some high standing furniture was not appropriately secured, this put people at risk and we found some out-of-date medical items within the service. These issues had not been identified through the provider’s quality assurance processes, indicating a gap in oversight. These issues were raised during the assessment, and the provider took immediate action to address the concern.

Maintenance and cleaning checks were in place to support a safe and well-maintained environment for people using the service. Environmental risks were regularly monitored, and systems were in place to identify areas requiring attention.

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.

Staff told us they received a structured induction when they started working at the service. This helped ensure staff were prepared for their roles and understood the needs of people using the service.

Staff confirmed they received regular supervision and opportunities for professional development. One staff member told us, “We are doing more clinical supervisions which is more interesting.” This provided staff with opportunities to reflect on their practice, discuss performance and enhance their skills and knowledge.

Safe recruitment processes were in place, with appropriate pre-employment checks completed before staff commenced work. Records showed staff were up to date with mandatory training, supporting them to carry out their roles safely and effectively.

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 home was clean and maintained a hygienic environment. During the assessment, we observed cleaning activities taking place and found appropriate standards of cleanliness throughout the service. A person told us, “It’s very clean, they usually clean every day.”

The provider had systems in place to monitor infection prevention and control (IPC) practices, including regular cleaning and laundry audits. These audits supported the identification of areas for improvement and helped maintain effective infection control measures.

We observed safe IPC practices being followed by staff during the inspection. Staff had received training in IPC, including hand hygiene, and demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in preventing and controlling the spread of infection.

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

We observed medicines being administered safely by trained and competent staff. Staff followed appropriate procedures during medicines administration and demonstrated good practice in supporting people to receive their medicines safely.

Staff told us they received regular competency assessments to ensure they administered medicines safely. A staff member said, “I do the competency once a year and we have to be shadowed to do so many medications. We have to do it specifically being observed.”