Rose Lodge & Holland House 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Staff told us when something went wrong, they talked about it in meetings and worked out what could be done differently. For example, they checked for trip hazards or reviewed medication when someone had falls. They also said they used extra monitoring, like sensor mats, when needed and with permission.

The registered manager analysed incidents so trends could be identified. This allowed them to make changes in care when needed to keep people safer. For example, they could see if more staff were needed at certain times of day.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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 understood how to keep people safe and what to do if they had concerns. Staff said they would speak to the registered manager straight away and contact health professionals if needed. They had access to safeguarding guidance and had training about protecting both adults and children.

Records showed staff were aware of DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) and why these were important. They explained that DoLS authorisations were requested when people could not leave the home on their own safely or needed continuous supervision to keep them safe. Staff said this helped make sure decisions were lawful and in the person’s best interests. Staff explained how safeguarding was part of their everyday work. Supervision sessions reminded staff about safeguarding, and they said they felt confident to raise concerns with the registered manager. This helped make sure people were cared for safely and with dignity.

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. Staff had received training in risk management, moving and handling, nutrition, falls prevention, and pressure area care, and staff demonstrated practical understanding during the inspection. For example, pressure area care was supported through regular repositioning and use of appropriate equipment such as air mattresses. One family member said, “I feel [Name] is perfectly safe here. People are around all the time to check on them and help them.”

The home also carried out wider safety checks and drills. Fire safety audits were completed regularly, and staff took part in practice drills using evacuation mats so they knew what to do in an emergency. Each person had a PEEP (Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan), which explained how they would be supported to leave the building safely in an emergency, taking into account their mobility and equipment needs. These steps helped staff stay prepared and supported the safety of everyone living in the home.

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 home provided a pleasant environment for people to spend time in. Communal areas were clean and well maintained, and people were seen relaxing in lounges and taking part in activities. Visitors told us they felt welcome, and staff were observed offering drinks and snacks throughout the day. One person said, “It all seems very clean, and I can have a shower as often as I want to.” A family member commented, “There is a really good atmosphere within the home and there are never any nasty smells.” There were some concerns that the dementia environment was not fully reflective of best practice, such as signage and colour contrast, but this did not appear to impact people’s wellbeing. Staff supported people with orientation and ensured they could move around safely. Bedrooms were en-suite, and the visitor toilet was described as spotless. No unpleasant odours were noted during the visit, and call bells were answered promptly. These measures helped maintain a safe and comfortable environment for everyone living in the home.

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. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs, and staff were available when required.

Staff were safely recruited and they told us they worked as a team and supported each other when needed. One person said, “There are lots of staff here and I always get help if I need it.” Another person commented, “If I call out for help they come to me very quickly.” A family member added, “People [staff] just seem to appear out of nowhere. I have never found [Name] in distress because they are waiting to be helped.” Staff had the skills and training to provide effective care. Staff confirmed they had completed training in safeguarding, infection control, fire safety, and moving and handling, and refresher courses were monitored online. Induction included shadowing more experienced staff to get to know people's 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. The home had systems in place to prevent and control infection. Cleaning schedules were in place and seen during the visit, with daily checks and deep cleans carried out regularly. Staff explained that they used colour-coded equipment to prevent cross-contamination. One staff member said, “We work as a team so if downstairs can’t get a deep clean done, upstairs will come down and support.” Staff had training and followed good practice for infection control. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available and used correctly to reduce the risk of spreading infection. People told us the home was clean and hygienic. One person said, “It all seems very clean and I can have a shower as often as I want to.” A family member commented, “I think they keep everywhere very clean.” These measures helped maintain a safe environment for everyone living in the home.

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’s medicines were managed safely and in line with their needs. Staff explained that medication was administered at set times and recorded on MAR (Medication Administration Records). Lunchtime medicines were given from 12 noon onwards, and Parkinson’s medication was administered at specific times throughout the day. PRN (as needed) protocols were in place, and staff understood how to follow them. For example, one record showed PRN paracetamol and co-codamol were documented with clear instructions. Covert medication was used only when agreed in the person’s best interests, with consent from family and advice from a pharmacist. Staff were trained and supported to give medicines safely. People told us they were happy with how their medicines were managed. A family member told us, “I know what [my relative] is taking and why. There haven’t been any issues with medication, and I like that the staff here take control of it all.”