Harrogate Lodge

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Managers listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Processes were effective and lessons were learned to continually identify and embed good practice. One staff member told us, “The manager and deputy manager are very approachable. I can always approach them, and they will always investigate my concerns.”

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. Pre-admission paperwork and intermediate care admission booklets gave staff person-centred history and information to support people on their initial arrival.

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 with the appropriate people. There were processes in place for effective safeguarding. A safeguarding tracker with referrals and investigations was in place. Lessons learned were analysed and shared with staff. Statutory notifications were submitted when required.

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. Care plans were person centred and people told us they were involved in their care. One relative told us, “I am involved in their care, everything is done together, decisions are made together.”

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. For example, we found equipment used for safe moving and handling was stored in a corridor; this put people at risk in the event of an emergency and increased the likelihood of trips and falls. During our observations we found some windows needed replacing. The fire risk assessment had identified fire doors needed replacing and the provider had a date for when this was due to take place. Other fire safety measures were in place. Staff told us they had received fire training, and we found evidence of regular fire drills. All other required maintenance checks were in place and up to date.

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. Staff were recruited safely with mandatory recruitment checks in place. Most staff members were up to date with their mandatory training. Staff told us they did not always receive regular supervision which had been identified prior to our assessment, and the registered manager had already actioned this and had put a supervision matrix in place. Staff felt they had adequate training and there were enough staff to support people. Some relative’s told us they felt there could be more staff on shift.

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. There were infection prevention and control (IPC) policy and processes in place. Actions following an IPC audit were in the process of been completed following an action plan. The home was clean, and we observed staff wearing PPE. People said they were happy with IPC within the home.

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 effective processes in place to manage medicines safely. We checked medicine records for 4 people. There were no gaps in their medication administration records (MAR). Time critical medicine was administered at the correct times. People who were prescribed transdermal patches had body maps in place to show patch rotation was taking place. Medicines were stored appropriately and organised securely in cupboards and drug trolleys which were kept in treatment rooms. Temperature monitoring of the treatment rooms and fridges where medicines were stocked was recorded daily throughout the home. People did not raise any concerns in relation to their medicines.