Lakeland View Care Centre

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 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.

People were supported to manage safety incidents and avoid reoccurrence because the provider’s policies enabled staff to understand and learn from safety events. Root cause analysis processes had been completed and lessons learned had been communicated with staff. Leaders were proactive in identifying patterns and themes.

Staff had been open about incidents, because leaders had embedded an open culture within the team.

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.

People were supported to transition safely into the home. Leaders ensured they completed detailed pre-assessment checks prior to admission. Staff told us they always received clear information about people before they moved in and during daily handovers. Additional support had been provided, when needed, to help people to settle into the home.

People were supported safely when attending medical appointments or being admitted and discharged from hospital. People had hospital passports which included essential information about their needs, medicines, communication and preferences. One relative said, “When we took [Name] to hospital, they gave us all the information to take with us.”

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.

People were safeguarded from avoidable harm and abuse because leaders were proactive in identifying and responding to concerns. Staff had received training about safeguarding and were able to recognise what might be a concern and how they should raise this.

The home ensured people were only deprived of their liberty with the correct legal authorities to do so. Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been completed for those who needed them. The status of all applications had been tracked to ensure they remained up to date.

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 were supported to manage and resond to risks in their daily lives. Risk assessments in care recods identified risks to people's safety and risk management plans helped to minimise the potential for harm from these risks. Staff understand the risk management plans.

The provider had robust systems in place to understand and respond to people whose behaviours communicated a need. Staff felt confident to support people at these times.

We found further clarity was needed in relation to some restrictive practices. Some interventions for some people might not have been the least restrictive option. The provider and leaders responded fully during this assessment, we were assured proper processes were being followed. In addition, face to face training for staff from an external agency had been delivered and greater clarity provided to support staff.

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’s environment was safe. During our assessment there was significant structural work being completed. The main lounge area was not in use. The provider had completed a risk assessment to manage the potential for harm and disruption and identified the need for additional staff to support people affected by the disruption.

Maintenance records in relation to electrical safety, equipment servicing, legionella risks and water temperature checks were all up to date.

Fire risks had been assessed, and regular checks of fire safety equipment had been completed. Staff had received training in fire safety and understood the emergency evacuation plan.

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.

The provider had robust recruitment procedures in place which they had followed. Recruitment records included all the appropriate pre-employment checks to ensure new staff were of good character.

Induction for new staff was comprehensive and included face to face training, training booklets and online courses. Staff told us they were supported to understand people’s needs and did not work alone with people until they felt confident.

Staff had received mandatory training and additional training to support people’s specific needs, including epilepsy, diabetes and positive behavioural support.

People were supported by enough staff because leaders regularly reviewed staffing levels and adjusted staff according to what people needed. Relatives told us there always seemed to be enough staff when they visited. Staff told us they had enough time to support people safely.

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.

People were safe from the risk of infections because the provider had robust policies in place to monitor cleanliness and infection risks in the home. Leaders had developed a strategic plan to improve infection prevention and control management. Leaders and staff followed detailed outbreak plans when needed.

The home appeared to be clean, and housekeeping staff were following their routines. There had been some disruption due to the ongoing construction work which leaders had addressed by increasing the frequency of some cleaning tasks.

Staff were seen to use personal protective equipment appropriately throughout this assessment.

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.

People’s medicines were ordered stored and administered as prescribed. Medicines were administered by staff who had been trained and their competencies checked.

People’s medicines were reviewed regularly to ensure they were still effective.

There were protocols in place to guide staff when to administer medicines prescribed for when required. Medicine checks were in place to identify any irregularities. Medicine errors were recorded and investigated. Lessons learned were shared with staff at regular clinical governance meetings.