Bowden 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. 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 78 (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 strong proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and complete honesty. Staff actively listened to concerns about safety and thoroughly investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. There was a learning culture in the care home. Staff were aware of procedures to follow to report and record incidents. We saw accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed to identify themes and trends. Feedback to the staff team was provided through regular team meetings and supervisions. Staff told us communication from the homes management team was excellent, they were listened to and their suggestions valued, which promoted an inclusive culture ensuring lessons were learnt. One staff member said, “I am well supported by the manager, I am listened to and can talk in confidence. We work well together.” Another staff member said, “We review when things go wrong, to ensure we improve, we also look at good practice and share ways of promoting this. The manager is very good, really supports me.”

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

We saw evidence in care plans of visits and referrals to health professionals and information was shared and reviewed to ensure people’s needs were met. We saw people were extremely well supported during transition to the service. There was a good transition plan with structured day visits, then overnight stays before people eventually moved in permanently. We also saw people were being supported with independent living skills to be able to move on to supported living. Health care professionals praised the staff on their skills with people to ensure a smooth transition providing good outcomes for people. One professional said, “The manager communicated effectively throughout this process, and it has been exemplary.”

People we spoke with explained to us how staff were supporting them to be independent so they could manage to live on their own. One person said, “I’m going to move into assisted living, I’m looking forward to that.”

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 registered manager shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and reported incidents immediately to management.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People's capacity was assessed in line with MCA and decisions were made, where people did not have capacity, in their best interest. People had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place to protect their rights and the service complied with these.

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 which mattered to them. Risks associated with people's care were identified and managed effectively. The registered manager told us, “All support plans are person-centred and directed only at the current needs of the individual. Everyone is allocated a keyworker who will offer and hold keyworker meetings monthly. This will involve discussions around current support plans and if they wish to make changes. Individuals who wish are encouraged to be involved in their support plans and goal settings.” We saw risk assessments were in place and regularly reviewed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Appropriate checks of the environment and associated services, including fire, water and equipment, had been completed and were reviewed by the provider.

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 which met people’s individual needs. Members of staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s care and support needs.

Staffing levels were determined by the needs of the people who used the service. Staff told us, there were adequate staff to ensure people’s needs were met, this included being able to access the community with support if they wished.

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. The service was extremely well maintained and clean. One person said, “It’s spotless everywhere.”

Staff had access to appropriate stores of personal protective equipment (PPE). Members of staff had access to infection prevention and control policies. Audits we reviewed, were effective in identifying areas for improvement and the provider had an environmental action plan that was being followed to make improvements.

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.

Administration of medications was managed safely. Members of staff had access to policies and procedures which supported safe clinical practice. Staff were knowledgeable on peoples’ medicines and specific requirements. Staff were trained and received competency checks. We observed staff administering medicines safely and staff were able to explain people’s needs.

People told us they were well supported to take their medicines, some people explained how they were starting to self-administer and how the staff were supporting them with this. One person said, “I’ve started self-administering. The staff provide all the support I need. They [staff] double check I’ve taken them.”