The Gardens

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.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had a system in place to ensure lessons were continually learnt and good practices were embedded through the home. They had developed and implemented a lessons learnt document, which was used when various situations and incidents had occurred. It included detail on what the situation was, what happened during this and how a reflective discussion took place within the team to review this. There was also a lessons learnt analysis and a future actions and outcome section which related to the person. There were systems in place to ensure lessons were learnt to ensure good practice was continued, staff felt involved with this.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

There was a robust transition period and plan for the person that was utilised before and when they transitioned into the service, as reported upon under assessing needs. Care plans and risk assessments had been developed alongside the person, family members and professionals. These were based on their assessed needs that were continually reviewed and updated when required. There were systems in place to ensure the person’s needs were fully assessed before they started using the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that.

Relatives raised no concerns around safety. One relative told us, “[Person] is doing good he is more joyful.”

The safeguarding procedures in place ensured when needed concerns were identified and reported. Staff told us they had received training and were aware what action they should take if there were concerns.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In [care homes/hospitals], this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that when needed, DoLS were in place.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

No concerns were raised with the management of risk. We observed the person appeared safe and comfortable in their environments.

There was a system in place to ensure the person had individual detailed care plans and risk assessments in place, that were reflective of their current needs. They were developed individually with the person, and those important to them. The registered manager and staff considered how people could be involved with this process and adapted this to ensure the person was involved.

These plans considered the persons health needs, dietary requirements and any known risks such as during times when they maybe emotionally distressed. These were reviewed regularly or when changes had occurred. Staff were aware of these plans, felt updated on any changes and knew how to support the person.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

The person looked comfortable in their environment, and their actions raised no concerns to us. Relatives raised no concerns around the environment their relation lived in.

The home environment had been specifically adapted to meet this person needs. Where needed any risks to the environment or premises had been assessed. There were processes in place to ensure any risks were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

The provider had systems in place to ensure there were enough staff available to support people.

There was a system in place to work out the number of staff that were needed to ensure the person was safely supported. Staffing numbers were delivered to the person in line with their assessed level of need. The person was able to utilise these hours and spend time completing activities of their choice in their home and in a community setting.

Staff had received training, including training that was specific to the persons individual needs. Staff told us and records confirmed staff had received up to date training. One staff member told us, “We have had lots of training that was specific to [person] like managing his health needs and conditions.”

Staff had received the relevant pre-employment checks before they could start working with the person to ensure they were safe to do so.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

There was enough Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) available for staff and when needed this was used correctly. Staff told us and records confirmed they had received training. There were processes in place to monitor IPC to ensure concerns were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

No concerns were raised with the management of medicines.

We saw medicines were stored safely. When the person had ‘as required’ medicines, there was detailed guidance in place for staff to follow to ensure the person had these at the correct time and only when needed. Staff administering medicines, felt confident to do so, had received training and their competency was checked to ensure they were safe to administer them. The registered manager told us how they had recently started using an electronic system for managing medicines and spoke positively about this. Checks on stock levels and administration of medicines were also completed.