Adamscourt Residential 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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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 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. People were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm because safeguarding systems were in place and followed.Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people and took appropriate action when concerns were identified. People told us they felt safe living at the service, and their relatives agreed. Comments included, “I am happy, and I feel safe,” and “They [staff] don’t only look after [name], they look after me as well. What they do also makes me feel safe.” Staff were confident the registered manager would take concerns seriously and act on them. Staff had completed safeguarding adults training, with regular updates, and felt empowered to raise concerns. Safeguarding records showed referrals had been made when necessary. The registered manager had made all statutory notifications to CQC as required by law. Statutory notifications are submitted by services to inform CQC of events which occur within it. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. All legal applications had been made in accordance with DoLS, and people’s rights were respected. The registered manager had oversight of DoLS authorisations and maintained a system to ensure all documents were current and reviewed as needed.

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 were involved in managing risks to their health, safety, and wellbeing in ways that promoted their independence and preferences. People had risk assessments in place for all aspects of their care and support needs. The provider used an electronic care planning system, which meant updates could be made instantly, and staff had access to the most up-to-date information about people’s risks. For example, where a person was at high risk of falls, each fall was documented within their assessment and used to inform future planning. General risk assessments were in place which considered people’s individual needs within the communal environment, such as the safe use of stairs. Staff demonstrated a detailed understanding of people’s needs and were committed to supporting people safely. People told us they felt safe and comfortable. A person commented, “I love my bedroom, and I have all my things with me.”

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service 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. Recruitment processes were in place; however, we found some staff records had not been fully completed in line with the provider’s policy. The registered manager corrected this during the inspection. People were not negatively impacted and the registered manager made changes to prevent a recurrence. Staffing levels were as planned, and people told us staff were available when they needed them. One person said, “The staff are nice here and they do anything I ask,” and a relative shared, “I appreciate the continuity of care. I like to see the same faces on the same days. Staff are polite and friendly every day.” Training was delivered in line with good practice guidance, and staff said they felt supported by the registered manager. One staff member told us, “I am happy here and feel supported in my role. I was a shy person before, but I’ve become more confident thanks to the support and training provided.” The registered manager had oversight of staff training and ensured it was up to date.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.