Neale Court

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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 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.

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.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks in a holistic way. Staff provided safe and supportive care that met people’s needs and enabled them to do what mattered to them. However, not all risks had been fully explored. One person experienced distress due to interactions with another person living at the home. Risk assessments did not fully consider how both people’s rights and needs could be balanced while reducing incidents of distress. The registered manager was aware of these concerns and was taking action to address them.

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 provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Staff received support, supervision and development and worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. However, there were missed opportunities to promote meaningful learning and development through supervisions and appraisals. Supervision records contained generic information and did not demonstrate staff involvement or evidence of reflective discussion. Appraisal objectives were brief and lacked clear focus or measurable outcomes. We identified gaps in staff knowledge and skills when supporting people who experienced distressed. Incident records did not always contain sufficient detail to support effective analysis needed to reduce the likelihood of future occurrences. The registered manager had introduced new training in this area, although this had not yet been fully embedded into practice. Staff were able to explain the principles of the training and how it would influence their practice to better support people living in the home.

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.

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.