Eversley Rest 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.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating remains good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At the last inspection we identified a breach of legal regulations in relation to keeping people safe and the physical environment. The provider had made improvements and were no longer in breach of these legal regulations.

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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The registered manager investigated incidents, accidents and near miss occurrences to see if anything could be done differently. For example, after someone had a unobserved fall they were referred for additional support from healthcare partners to minimise the risk of recurrence.

The staff at the service 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. For example, staff observed someone had a noticeable change in their behaviour. This was explored with them and a referral was made for additional support from healthcare partners to ensure the person’s needs were safely met in a timely way.

People were safe from abuse and improper treatment as the service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Everyone we spoke with stated they knew how to raise a concern if they were worried about anything and were confident, they would be responded to appropriately. Staff had received training on safeguarding and knew how to raise concerns. Information was displayed for people, visitors and staff on how to raise concerns. The provider made timely notifications to the local authority when it was necessary. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. When a person could not make decisions the provider followed best practice guidance to ensure the person’s rights were maintained.

People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm. One person said, “Staff are very honest with me. I want to be mobile, but they tell me it will take time.” The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People had individual assessments of risk associated with their care and support. These included, but were not limited to, risk of falls diet and nutrition. Staff were aware of these assessments and knew how to keep people safe.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. One person told us, “I can see a fire exit from here and I know to go through it and wait for a staff member.” The provider had a programme of refurbishment which they were following and made sure any risks to the physical environment were addressed in a timely way. For example, rooms containing items such as chemicals had key coded locks preventing unauthorised access to potentially harmful materials.

People were supported by enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. People’s individual needs were met by staff who worked together well to provide safe care. People told us they were supported by enough staff to meet their needs in a timely way. One person told us all staff know them and they know them back. They did not notice any changes in staff numbers throughout the week or the weekend and their needs were promptly met when they requested support. The provider followed safe recruitment checks to ensure only suitable persons were employed to support people. People were supported by staff who completed training specific to those they supported. This included dementia training and learning disability and autistic spectrum awareness.

People lived in a home which was clean, tidy and where staff observed effective infection prevention and control practices. One person said, “My bedroom is cleaned every morning, look around everything is clean.” The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading. People told us the staff supporting them always wore appropriate personal protection equipment. The home was clean and tidy and regular checks were made to ensure effective infection prevention and control practice was maintained.

People received their medicines as prescribed. One person said, “I take pain relief and if I need more I talk to staff.” The service made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. However, we saw recent checks to the safe storage of medicines was outside of the safe ranges for such medicines. We raised our concerns with the registered manager who corrected this immediately and there was no impact on people as a result. People had protocols in place for the administration of PRN medication (as and when needed) including the prescribed dose, time between administrations and maximum dose within a 24-hour period.