Clifden House Dementia 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. This is the first assessment since the provider changed their registration. This key question has been rated good.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. There were good clear processes in place that demonstrated how learning was taken forward. The registered manager had good oversight of accidents and incidents and did an analysis weekly to look for patterns, trends and learning opportunities. We viewed some incidents and accidents, and these were followed up in care plans. We spoke with staff about reporting incidents and accidents and staff were knowledgeable about the correct procedures to follow.

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. Transitions into the service were done safely and effectively, and staff took the time to get to know people and what their needs were. There was evidence in care plans and daily notes that referrals to external professionals had been made where necessary. We observed one person being supported to attend a hospital appointment, a staff member was assigned to accompany them to enable good communication with the hospital. Relatives told us they felt their loved ones received good care and staff knew people well and were friendly, kind and their loved ones respond well to staff. One relative told us, "What I like is as well they will always link up with the GP."

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. There was an up to date and relevant safeguarding policy in place. The registered manager had appropriately identified safeguarding concerns, and these had been correctly referred to the relevant agencies. One relative told us, "I have no complaints I have even told social service how good it is there." Another person told us, "Yes, I feel they are very safe there, always staff around."

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. Relevant risk assessments were viewed in care plans for identified needs. We observed staff interacting with people and it was clear they knew people well and how to keep them safe. We observed staff being attentive to people to minimise risks, for example, one person was trying to leave the building, and staff were responsive to the door alarms to support them. Another person tried to stand without assistance, but was at risk of falls, staff responded immediately to prevent the person from falling.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.Areas of improvements were identified for some of the environment around the home. Since identifying these areas, the registered manager and provider have been proactive to drive these improvements and there was a 12-month action plan for areas of improvements in place. Staff told us, "We clean as you go and not just that, keep areas free of hazards, if there is something on the floor we will not wait for the cleaner and clean. We ensure residents have proper shoes on."

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. Safe recruitment procedures were in place. Staff received a comprehensive induction and training programme, and were confident with the level of training they had received. We observed sufficient staffing numbers on both days of the inspection. There were staff in the communal areas, and they were observed going in to check on those who preferred to stay in their rooms. One relative told us, "Staff, there seems to be loads of them, they work so hard.” Another relative told us, "I have no complaints, the staff are very helpful and friendly, and [Name] always appears happy when I go in to visit."

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. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available around the home and staff were observed using PPE appropriately. The registered manager did regular audits of cleaning checklists, and did regular walkarounds of the property to ensure cleaning was being done correctly. One relative told us, "The room 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 service had an electronic medicine administration record [MAR] system in place which worked well. Some people were on controlled medicines. Controlled medications aredrugs whose manufacture, possession, and use are regulated. These were managed and stored safely. They were countersigned by two staff members in line with guidance. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of what medicines were and what they were for. One relative told us, "[Name] medication is always given on time, and because their swallowing is not so good, where able, they give them it in liquid form, they do not rush [name] either. they spend time giving the medication."