Stonecross Care Centre

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 manager 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 manager had improved the oversight and monitoring of accidents and incidents. Where lessons had been learned the sharing of these was being done in staff meetings. Appropriate referrals were made to other agencies including local safeguarding team and relevant health professionals. Families and relevant others were informed of accidents and incidents, and duty of candour was followed.

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. Management completed preadmission assessments to identify if people’s needs could be safely met by the service. Records showed evidence of working well with external services.

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 and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe. One relative told us, “I feel my relative is safe and I am well informed if there are any changes to their care.” Staff had received training in recognising abuse and on deprivation of liberties safeguarding (DoLS). Staff identified incidents of safeguarding and had shared them with the local authority. Consents had been obtained and DoLS applied for in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People had been supported to understand and manage risks in relation to elements of their care such as self-medication. Staff provided safe, supportive care to meet people’s needs. This enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. The manager and staff had implemented improved assessments and records for risks associated with care and treatment. Staff told us they could access people’s records easily to follow risk management. We observed positive interactions by staff with people who could not easily express their needs or became distressed. Staff told us they felt they had received the right training to meet people’s needs safely.

The provider needs to consider developing, in line with current guidance and best practice, the design and décor of the environment to meet the needs of those living with dementia. Improvements were seen in the management of the safety of the environment since the last inspection. Equipment checks and regular servicing was in place. Staff were adequately trained in fire and evacuation. The manager had improved systems and processes for monitoring and managing risks associated with the property, environment and equipment.

The provider had implemented safer recruitment practices and checks to ensure staff being employed were of suitable character and fit for the role. The manager made sure there were enough suitably qualified staff on each shift. A dependency scoring tool was used to determine the ideal number of staff required. Staff received effective support, supervision and development. Staff told us they felt they had received sufficient training to care for people safely. However, we saw from training records that some staff had not completed all the Elearning (online learning) required. The manager was in the process of addressing this with staff. One person told us, “The staff know what they are doing.” We observed staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The manager 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 was clean and regular checks of the cleanliness and infection prevention were being completed. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and hand sanitiser was readily available and seen to be used effectively. People were happy with the quality of cleanliness in the home. Food handling and hygiene was done in line with best practice. One relative told us, “The home is always clean and tidy.”

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. The home effectively used an electronic medication administration recording system (eMAR). However, records used for the application of prescribed creams were not as effective and areas for improvement had been identified. The management took immediate action to address this along with individual written information to guide staff about some risks associated with some medicines such as blood thinners.