Saxon Manor 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 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The providers had a proactive approach towards safety. Safety events were investigated and lessons learned were shared with staff to mitigate the risk of future occurrences. Both the Registered Manager and staff felt able to raise concerns with the providers. Staff were able to give us examples where they felt able to raise concerns with the Registered Manager and changes had been implemented.

Safe systems of care were in place and the providers worked with people and stakeholders such as the Local Authority to monitor and maintain these systems. The providers liaised closely with people’s healthcare professionals to ensure a continuity of care which met people’s individual needs. There were processes in place to support people safely when they moved between different services in order to minimise disruption and distress. One person’s relative told us their family member’s move to the service was managed well and they were given an induction pack to complete. They went on to say their family member could detail their interests in the induction pack, so staff had a better understanding of them. A second person’s relative said their family member’s move was a, “Smooth transition.”

People were protected from the risk of abuse and harm. The providers understood what being safe meant to people and measures were put in place to ensure people’s safety. For example, one person’s relative told us their family member felt unsafe at night after a couple of falls and requested staff check on them during the night, which was implemented. The providers shared safeguarding concerns with us and the Local Authority safeguarding team promptly. People and their relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns if they felt unsafe or had concerns about the safety of others. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and were supported to raise concerns.

A review of people’s care records showed individual risks to people’s safety had been identified by staff, however, the details provided within these was not consistent with other information within people’s care records. For example, 1 person’s mobility risk assessment stated they walked independently, whereas elsewhere in their care records it detailed they required staff support when mobilising. There was little evidence showing people and/or their relatives were involved in reviews of risk assessments. Despite this, staff knew people well and had a good understanding of their individual risks and how to manage these.

There were processes in place to ensure equipment, facilities and technology were regularly serviced and well maintained to ensure people’s safety. Procedures were in place to identify potential risks in the service and maintenance records showed prompt action was taken where concerns had been identified. Improvements were needed in relation to people’s personal emergency evacuations plans (PEEPs) which are used in the event of an evacuation, such as a fire. Some PEEPs we reviewed lacked sufficient detail in relation to the mobility aids people used to mobilise safely, however, although this information was available in people’s care records this may not have been available in an emergency.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure people received safe care which met their individual needs. Staff received training appropriate and relevant to their role, this included training for specific care needs such as dementia and end of life care. Staff we spoke with told us they attended regular supervisions where they discussed any developmental needs they had. Staff also had yearly appraisals.

The provider had procedures in place to manage the risk and spread of infection. Where there was a risk of infection spreading, appropriate measures were put in place to minimise the risk. This included caring for people in their rooms and wearing additional personal protective equipment. The service was clean throughout with no malodours, and the kitchen and food serving areas were noted to be clean with regular cleaning schedules followed.

People received their medicines according to the prescriber’s instructions. Regular auditing of people’s medicines took place to ensure staff managed and administered people’s medicines in a safe way. Staff underwent regular assessments to check their competencies in relation to the safe handling of medicines. All medicines were seen to be stored safely and where required, at the right temperatures.