La Fontana

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 72 (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 developing and improving learning culture, with evidence that safety concerns were listened to and acted upon.

Relatives told us when they shared any worries or concerns with staff these were escalated promptly and followed up by managers.

Immediate actions were taken during the assessment to address any areas for improvement, and any learning from the assessment was discussed with staff and embedded into the service improvement plan.

This meant there was an improved learning culture which had been implemented by the new provider, with lessons being used to support safer practice and ongoing improvement.

The provider had systems in place to support continuity of care and safe transitions, including pre‑admission assessments and engagement with health and care professionals.

People’s needs were assessed before admission to ensure the service could meet them safely. Staff worked collaboratively with external professionals, and changes to people’s needs were shared to support continuity of care.

While systems were generally effective, some relatives reported inconsistencies in communication, which the provider had begun to address through improved oversight and care planning processes.

People were protected from the risk of abuse by staff who understood their safeguarding responsibilities and how to raise concerns.

People said they felt safe living at the home. One person told us, “I do [feel safe]. All the staff are lovely and kind.” Relatives felt people were safe and spoke fondly of the staff.

Staff knew what signs to look out for and reported concerns appropriately. Any allegations of poor practice were acted on immediately. Oversight of safeguarding was in place, with actions taken to reduce any future risks. For example, when concerns had been raised about possible poor care at night, unannounced night checks had been carried out by managers to ensure people were safe and being well cared for. These checks found the concerns were unfounded.

Staff responded calmly and sensitively when people became distressed or upset. One relative said staff were “Very good with [name]” and they described how staff had developed particularly positive relationships that helped reduce people’s levels of distress.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment withappropriate legalauthority. In care homes, this is done through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service followed the principles of the MCA and how it managedDoLS.

The management team used a ‘deprivation of liberty tracker’; this included any conditions included in people's authorisations which needed to be met. This process ensured people who needed this level of support had a DoLS authorisation in place and any conditions were met. This was also evidenced within the care notes the staff completed about people on a day-to-day basis. This ensured people’s human rights were promoted and respected.

The provider involved people and their relatives in assessing and managing risks.

People’s care records included information about individual risks and how staff should work to minimise risks to people. For example, risks around malnutrition, mobility, choking, equipment use, skin integrity and falls were assessed and regularly reviewed. We saw staff worked in a safe way, in line with people’s risk assessments.

Relatives told us they were involved in care planning and in any updates, and staff monitored risks such as weight loss and falls. The provider also had systems in place to monitor risks as part of their quality assurance systems. This meant there was good oversight and an additional layer of review carried out to ensure people’s safety.

The management team detected risks and had systems designed to control potential risks in the care environment.

People and relatives told us the home was safe and well maintained. One relative told us they had reported an issue to staff on the first day of our visit and this was attended to. The maintenance person had systems to ensure all equipment was regularly tested. External contractors were also used to ensure servicing of equipment, such as hoists, took place to promote the safety of people and staff.

The provider also held a general health and safety meeting every 3 months, so all services were able to share information and learning. The last meeting was held in February 2026. This meeting covered safe infection control practices, relevant training requirements and reviewed any lessons learned from any health and safety incidents across the provider’s services.

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.

Managers used a tool which helped determine the number of staff required to meet each person’s individual needs. This was reviewed if people’s needs changed. Staffing numbers could increase to meet a specific need, such as if a person needed more intensive staff support.

Staff had mixed views about staffing levels in the home. Some staff said there were enough staff, others said they felt at times more staff would be helpful. We found people were supported by enough staff to meet their assessed needs; there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere on both of our visits.

People’s relatives spoke highly of staff, both in relation to the care and support they provided and their caring nature. Comments included, “The staff are wonderful” and “Staff have a good rapport and are meeting mum’s needs.”

Staff felt well supported and well trained. One staff member told us, “I would say that the training is good, and if you do online training away from the home you do get paid to complete your training.” Any additional staff training needs we identified during the assessment were acted upon immediately by the provider, including improvements to 1:1 supervision arrangements, clinical supervision for nursing staff and additional staff training in supporting people who have a learning disability.

People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely. Appropriate checks were carried out on all new staff to ensure they were able to work in the UK, of good character and safe to support vulnerable people. This helped to ensure people’s safety.

Infection prevention and control practices were not consistently effective.

The environment needed significant improvement which had been planned. The assessment identified environmental risks that could increase the spread of infection, primarily issues within 2 separate kitchenettes in the home. These risks were addressed immediately during the assessment, and remedial work was planned and brought forward.

The head housekeeper oversaw the housekeeping team who ensured the home was kept clean and hygienic. They had cleaning schedules in place which ensured all areas of the home were thoroughly cleaned and disinfected where appropriate.

There were ample supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as disposable gloves and aprons. Staff had easy access to PPE. We observed staff using PPE during our visits to ensure people were protected from the risk of infection.

People’s medicines were managed safely and effectively overall.

There had been an issue with the dispensing pharmacy which had caused delays in medicines being delivered to the home. This had meant some people may have not had their medicines on time. This issue had been taken seriously by the management team and resolved during the assessment.

Nurses administered people’s medicines. Some care staff were being supported to develop in their roles and were being trained to administer medicines. People’s medicines needs were reviewed regularly.

Medicines were stored safely and securely. Systems were in place to ensure medicines were administered as prescribed, and oversight arrangements supported safe practice.