Amethyst 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 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.

The registered manager reviewed accidents, incidents and near misses at the service and shared lessons with the team. Where actions were required, these were planned, carried out and reviewed to determine their effectiveness. This meant the provider acted upon lessons learned to improve people’s safety and support.

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.

The process of admission into the service involved a pre-admission assessment to determine if the service could meet people’s needs and preferences. After people moved into the service the provider and social workers from the local authority undertook a placement review to confirm that people’s needs were being met. Where people have been discharged to the service directly from hospital, reviews were undertaken to establish whether people required nursing care and whether a clinical setting was better suited to meet their needs. This meant the provider in partnership with people, their relatives and commissioners quickly determined the safety and suitability of 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. 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.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff received safeguarding training, enabling them to recognise the signs of abuse and their responsibility to report this. The provider had a safeguarding procedure and reported concerns. For example, where people were admitted into the service with issues such as pressure sores, this was reported to enable the cause to be determined and future incidents prevented.

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). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. The provider had DoLS policies and procedures in place. Where people were subject to restrictions to keep them safe, details of the deprivation, the assessments supporting them and the duration they applied for, were stated in care records.

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 protected from avoidable harm. The provider undertook a range of risk assessments to identify and manage risks to people. Where risks were identified, plans were in place to reduce them and keep people safe. For example, where people were identified as being at risk of falls, risk assessments provided staff with guidance on the actions to take. These included referring to healthcare specialists, removing trip hazards and using a sensor mat. Similarly, where people were at risk of choking, speech and language therapists assessed the safety of their swallowing and provided advice on the consistency of food and drink.

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

The care home environment was safe. The registered manager ensured that health and safety checks were regularly undertaken. The provider ensured that window restrictors were in place throughout the care home. This prevented people falling from height. Potentially hazardous cleaning products were securely locked away by staff. This prevented the risk of accidental harm if accessed by people. The care home was uncluttered and clean with no malodours.

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.

The provider followed robust recruitment processes to ensure that people were supported by safe and suitable staff. Thorough checks were undertaken before staff were employed. These included checking the identities, employment histories and the right to work. The provider also checked to make sure staff did not have a criminal record. New staff received an induction and completed a probation period after which their suitability for permanent employment was established.

People received their care and support from trained and supervised staff. The provider ensured that staff received training in a range of areas including health and safety, care planning, whistleblowing and record keeping. A relatives told us the staff were, “trained, skilful and knowledgeable.” A member of staff told us, “I am happy with the training that is provided.” The registered manager arranged regular individual meetings with staff to review their performance, set objectives and identity any training or support needs.

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 from the risk and spread of infection by the safe hygiene practices of staff. Food was stored and prepared safely using colour coded chopping boards to prevent cross contamination. Staff wore personal protective equipment such as single use gloves when supporting people with personal care. Staff received training in infection prevention and control as well as food safety. The registered manager conducted audits and observations to confirm staff worked in line with their training.

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.

People received their medicines safely from staff who were trained to administer them. Medicines were stored safely within a locked cupboard and were recorded on electronic medicines administration records. These were regularly audited by the registered manager to confirm people received their medicines as prescribed.