Pinetree Care Home

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 service. This key question has been rated 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 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.

The provider had robust systems in place for reporting and recording accidents and incidents and we saw evidence of learning around incidents in the home. For example, there had been a high number of falls and the provider had completed lessons learned around the number of falls. They had recently held a ‘Falls Prevention Day’ which had been opened up to the wider community to provide information to people, relatives, staff and external people around how to minimise the risk of falls. We saw evidence of the positive impact this was having within the home and the feedback from people who attended was positive.

The provider completed statutory notifications in line with their legal requirements and regulation. The provider carried out regular supervision, appraisals and team meetings which gave staff opportunities to reflect on practice and discuss learning. The registered manager told us how important it was that staff were supported to carry out their roles.

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 had their needs assessed before they moved into the home. The provider worked in partnership with external healthcare professionals such as dietitians, speech and language therapists (SALT) and district nurses to ensure people had access to healthcare when required. The provider had a daily meeting to discuss any concerns and visits from external healthcare professionals.

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.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities to report concerns and who to report concerns too. One staff member told us, “Yes, I had safeguarding training, it was really good. It supported us to learn how to protect our residents and ourselves from harm. We are currently doing refreshers for our safeguarding training. I feel comfortable raising any concerns. I think I’d be listened to if I raised a concern.”

The provider had safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place that were readily accessible to staff. Records showed safeguarding incidents were investigated and lessons learned were shared with the team. We saw evidence of safeguarding being discussed at team meetings.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and had no concerns with raising any issues. Comments included, “I feel safe, there are no restrictions” and “At Pinetree Care Home I feel they endeavour to do all they can to keep [relative] safe and have risk assessed [relative’s] safety. The home has put aids in place to support that.”

The home ensured people were only deprived of their liberty with the correct legal authorities to do so. The service worked closely with the local authority to ensure Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were completed for those who needed them. If people were subject to DoLS, information was included in their care plans.

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 and risk assessments we reviewed during our inspection of Pinetree Care Home were well detailed and covered a range of needs such as falls, choking and diabetes management. People and their relatives confirmed they were involved in reviews. One relative told us, “Pinetree has a system whereby there is a ‘resident of the day’ (on rotation) – staff sit with [relative) and discuss their care. As a relative any proposed changes are discussed with us – this works well.”

Staff told us they felt they were kept informed and updated of people’s need regularly and were able to seek support or guidance when required.

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

The provider had robust health and safety checks in place such as fire safety and equipment checks. Necessary safety certificates were in place to support safe environments in areas including gas safety and electricity checks. Systems were in place to ensure the water quality was maintained to reduce the risk of water-borne bacteria (like legionella). People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPS) in place which contained appropriate information for staff to safely evacuate people in the event of a fire.

The home was welcoming, clean and homely. The outside space was bright and accessible for people. One relative told us, “The environment is immaculate and well maintained, including the gardens."

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 received regular training and had supervisions. Staff we spoke with were positive about the training and support they receive at Pinetree Care Home. One staff member told us, “Training is provided regularly, and senior staff are available to guide and support newer team members when needed.” The provider had an employee of the month system in place to celebrate staff achievements and we saw evidence of how the provider celebrate the staff team, for example they held a staff breakfast to thank them for their hard work.

During our onsite inspection we observed enough staff at Pinetree Care Home; however, we did receive mixed feedback regarding staffing levels. People did feedback to us that they felt they had to sometimes wait for a period of time for assistance with support needs, especially in the mornings. One person told us, “The care is good, staff are lovely but they seem to be very short staffed in the mornings.” One person told us, “I feel I wait an awful long time.” However, another person told us, “I have my buzzer on my trolley, they [staff] come quite quickly.” Feedback from relatives was positive around staffing levels, one relative told us, “The environment is ultra safe as it is always secure and well-staffed.”

The provider had recruitment procedures in place to ensure the required checks were carried out prior to staff commencing their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions

The provider thoroughly assessed and managed the risk of infection. They always quickly detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and always shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The environment was consistently clean and tidy with no malodours. This was reflective of the robust auditing in place for infection prevention and control (IPC) and the environment. The provider and staff took pride in maintaining a clean and safe environment. Staff we spoke with told us how important it was to them that the environment was maintained to a high standard. People and their relatives told us that the home was always clean and raised no concerns about the cleanliness of the home. Comments we received included, “It is immaculate” and “The environment is ultra safe and very clean.” Communal areas were inviting and homely. Handwashing facilities and bathrooms were well stocked which helped promote effective handwashing practices around the home. The home was decorated to a high standard and people’s rooms were personalised with things that were important to them such as photographs.

We observed staff consistently following IPC guidelines and appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff had received the appropriate infection prevention and control (IPC) training. The provider had a policy and procedures in place for infection prevention and control.

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.

Medication was ordered and stored appropriately and the clinical room was clean and tidy, Daily temperatures were being recorded. People received their prescribed medicines in accordance with their needs. We did not identify any concerns around stock management and administration. We reviewed the PRN – ‘as required’ protocols and found these to contain appropriate information and were being reviewed regularly. Audits were in place and being completed.

Staff had received the appropriate training to support people with their medicines and competencies were being carried out as required.