Treetops Court Care Home Also known as 1-2655136637

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

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

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.

There were clear processes in place that enabled the staff team to learn from incidents, near misses, and any events within the service that highlighted opportunities for improvement. Learning was shared promptly through daily meetings, handovers, and staff discussions, ensuring information was not delayed or overlooked. One staff member said, “We are made aware of resident’s needs through care plans and handovers, and staff are updated if there are any changes. We support residents according to their individual needs and preferences while making sure they are safe, comfortable, and treated with dignity and respect. Communication within the staff team is good and we work together to support residents properly.” Another staff member said, “We share ideas during meetings, handovers and supervision and staff are provided with training to help improve care and develop skills.”

The provider’s systems ensured that learning was embedded quickly, and actions were taken without delay.

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.

The management team undertook thorough pre-admission assessments, and considered the information gained alongside any available social worker assessments and medical information, to ensure the service could meet people’s needs prior to admission. A 72-hour admission audit was then completed to confirm that care plans were in place and that all relevant risk assessments had been undertaken.

Care plans were subsequently reviewed after 4 weeks to ensure they were person-centred and accurately reflected people’s current needs. Staff used risk assessments and regular reviews to ensure appropriate care planning to mitigate any identified risks.

This approach supported the capture of up-to-date information, ensured people’s needs were clearly understood, and enabled risks to be identified at an early stage.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how this could be achieved. 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.

People told us they felt safe living in the home. One person said, “I feel safe here staff are lovely and kind.” Relatives also consistently expressed confidence in the safety of their family members. One relative told us, “Yes, I do feel [person] is safe. We are pleased with the care; [Person] is very comfortable and so frail at the moment.”

Concerns were shared promptly and appropriately with relevant safeguarding authorities, contributing to an open and responsive culture. Staff had received up-to-date safeguarding training and were knowledgeable about recognising and reporting abuse. They were able to describe the signs of abuse and the actions they would take to protect people. One staff member told us, “I do feel the care and support people receive is safe, because staff follow care plans and safeguarding procedures correctly. Any concerns are reported appropriately, and residents’ wellbeing and safety are always important to staff and management.”

Incidents were reviewed regularly to support learning and improvement. These were discussed during daily morning huddles, as well as in daily handovers to ensure staff were aware of any concerns and could respond appropriately. Safeguarding concerns were also reviewed routinely within clinical governance meetings, where themes and trends were identified and monitored. Learning from incidents and safeguarding was shared with staff through team meetings and handovers to promote reflection and improve practice across the service.

Information about safeguarding was accessible within the service. Posters were displayed, providing guidance on how to recognise abuse and how to report concerns, including contact details for relevant safeguarding authorities.

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.

People and relatives told us they were included in discussions about care plans and risk assessments. One relative told us, “[Person] and I are involved in their care plan.”

People were supported to make their own choices, including where these involved potential risks. For example, during the inspection, one person was observed lying in bed while beginning their lunch, positioned only slightly upright. Care records showed the person had previously declined to sit in an upright position for meals, including at breakfast, despite staff offering support and explaining the associated risks. Staff had appropriately documented the risks linked to this positioning, including the risk of choking, as well as the person’s decision to refuse advice and assistance.

Another person was supported to access the community independently. A risk assessment had been completed to enable this safely. Initially, staff accompanied the person and supported travel by taxi. As confidence increased, arrangements were made for the person to travel independently, with staff liaising with the taxi company to ensure drivers were aware of the person’s needs, destination and collection times. This enabled the person to maintain their independence while reducing potential risks.

Staff supported people to access meaningful activities, such as spending time in the local park. These activities had been risk assessed to ensure appropriate safeguards were in place, allowing people to continue to enjoy activities important to them.

People had detailed risk assessments in place which guided staff to support them in the safest and most appropriate way. Overall, risks were managed in a way that promoted people’s independence, choice and control, while ensuring staff understood and mitigated potential risks.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People and relatives told us the home was clean and free from unpleasant odours. One person said, “It is so clean here, the floors are cleaned every day, everywhere is dusted – it’s spotless.”

The environment was well maintained and regularly checked to ensure it remained a safe place for people to live. Environmental risk assessments were in place, including those relating to fire safety, infection prevention and control, and general premises safety. These were reviewed regularly. Records demonstrated that equipment and systems were tested at appropriate intervals, supporting ongoing safety and compliance.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The feedback from people living at the service and relatives about staff was positive. One person told us, “I feel very safe. I press my buzzer and staff just appear.” A relative told us, “We are pleased with the care, [Person] has complex needs and the staff understand what they need and how to look after [person], they are very safe.” Another relative told us, “[Person] is never rushed staff are very patient and kind to [person].”

Staff feedback was mixed. Whilst some staff reported there were sufficient staff on duty and staff worked well together, others raised concerns that staffing levels were not always adequate to meet people’s needs which had a negative impact on morale and the overall working environment. The provider informed us they used a dependency tool to determine staffing levels and had reviewed this, concluding current staffing levels were appropriate. At the time of the inspection, no formal concerns or complaints regarding staffing had been raised directly with the management team.

Following the concerns identified, the management team advised they had arranged a drop-in session for staff facilitated by the HR Business Partner. This was intended to provide a safe and confidential space for staff to raise concerns and share ideas. During the inspection, we observed staffing levels to be sufficient and did not identify any concerns regarding the number of staff on duty.

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 effective systems in place to support infection prevention and control. During our inspection, the home was observed to be clean, well maintained, and free from malodour. Cleaning schedules were in place and were being followed, which was confirmed through checks of records and our observations of the environment.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to infection prevention and control and were observed maintaining appropriate hygiene standards in practice. These arrangements helped to ensure the environment remained safe and reduced the risk of infection.

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.

There were robust systems in place to ensure medicines were managed and administered safely. Staff were well trained in medicines management, which helped reduce the risk of errors and ensured people received their medicines on time and as prescribed.

Clear processes were in place for the safe storage and disposal of medicines, and regular audits were carried out to ensure these procedures were consistently followed. Where people required medicines at specific times, this was adhered to, and for those who needed their medicines administered covertly, appropriate plans were in place in line with legislation and best practice guidance.

We reviewed medicines administration records (MAR) and found these had been completed correctly, with no unexplained gaps. During the inspection, we observed a medicines round and saw staff following safe practices, including checking people’s identity, administering medicines as prescribed, and recording administration promptly.

Clear processes were in place for the safe storage and disposal of medicines. We completed checks of medicines storage areas and found these were secure, with appropriate temperature monitoring in place. Regular audits were carried out to monitor practice and ensure procedures were being consistently followed, with any issues identified acted upon.

For people who required their medicines to be administered covertly (hidden), appropriate plans were in place, which reflected current legislation and best practice guidance. Overall, medicines were managed safely, and systems in place supported effective oversight, learning and continuous improvement.