Heron Lea Residential 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

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 66 (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. Robust systems were in place to investigate and review accidents and incidents. Where safety incidents occurred, there was a strong commitment to reflecting on them to reduce future risk, through the provider’s micro teaching sessions and during staff meetings.

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. Healthcare professionals praised the way the service supported transitions. They acknowledged the provider’s excellent communication and said they asked for advice and guidance, when needed. One told us, ‘The transition here has been good - communication has been absolutely fantastic.’ This had helped to ensure a successful transition for a person from a hospital to a residential setting.

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. People told us they felt safe living at the service. We saw, when safeguarding concerns had been raised, people had been supported sensitively through the process. The provider reported safeguarding concerns quickly and appropriately to the local authority and CQC. Staff received relevant training and were able to tell us their responsibilities related to keeping people safe from abuse.

Although most of the provider’s risk management systems were robust, review was needed in two areas. The hydration and snack station was not fully risk assessed to include potential risks from the available snacks for those people with a risk of choking. The provider acknowledged this and immediately began to address the potential risk. We found no impact, and staff were always present in this area, but the potential risk had not been identified and documented. In addition, not all staff were clear about the evacuation procedures for one person in the event of a fire. Although the provider had excellent paperwork relating to this, staff were not confident. The provider arranged an additional training session the following day discussed everyone’s needs in the event of an evacuation of the building. Other risks, including those relating smoking, falls and pressure care were identified and well managed.

The environment was mostly safe and suitable for the people who used the service. However, the building was not purpose built, and some areas required further works. We noted a high lip on the patio doors going out to the garden. The courtyard garden area had a handrail provided but the concrete paths were not always even, and these factors together presented a trip hazard. The provider, however, was aware of these issues and measures were already in place to secure quotes and commission remedial works to make the area safer. This was also the case with an area upstairs where the balustrade to the stairway was quite low, although the possible impact of this was negligible as staff were always in attendance when people were in this area. Other areas of the service were safe for people to access. There was good signage, with pictures, to help people living with dementia to navigate their way round the service.

Safety systems such as the fire system, fire-fighting equipment, gas, water and electrical systems were routinely tested and well maintained.

Although the provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs, recruitment processes required some review. We identified gaps in 2 people’s employment history had not been fully explored. This meant the provider had not had a complete picture of the person before employing them which could pose a potential risk. All other recruitment records for these 2 staff members were in place.

Staff worked together well, and people told us there were always enough staff to meet their needs. One relative said, ‘They seem to have enough. I don’t see people waiting long.’

Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training to check knowledge and skills. Staff told us they felt confident in their role. One explained, ‘[The provider] has given us so much training and information. It is so much nicer [than under the previous provider]. …The training is lots of face to face… [We] also have micro teaching on a Friday for an hour to discuss - fire, person centred care, safeguarding, medication [for example].’

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 service had an infection prevention and control policy, and staff had received relevant training. The service was clean, and staff followed good hygiene practices using appropriate personal protective equipment. There were regular checks of fridges and freezers to ensure food was stored safely. The main fridge required replacing and the provider confirmed they were in the process of purchasing a new one. Some areas of the service were carpeted which is more difficult to keep clean and the provider told us there was a programme of works to replace some of it with more suitable flooring.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff received comprehensive training to administer medicines and had their competency to do this checked twice a year. People told us they received their medicines on time and any pain was well managed. There was good evidence of partnership working with the local healthcare services to ensure people’s medicines were regularly reviewed and still appropriate for them.