Sleaford Manor 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

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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Records showed the service had systems in place to review and analyse incidents and accidents. These reviews included the development of action plans, which were followed up by the registered manager and deputy managers to ensure identified improvements had been implemented.

Learning from incidents was actively shared with staff through handovers, team meetings and one-to-one supervision sessions, helping to promote consistent and safe practice. Staff were supported with appropriate training to enable them to respond effectively to people’s individual needs, including training in supporting people living with dementia.

This approach demonstrated a culture of continuous learning and improvement, where lessons learned were embedded into practice to reduce the risk of recurrence and improve outcomes for people using the service.

The provider had effective systems to support safe, coordinated care. They worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals, including GP’s, district nurses and hospital teams, to ensure people received consistent and joined-up care. Records showed clear engagement with external professionals and effective information sharing. Staff recognised changes in people’s health and escalated concerns promptly, working with relatives and relevant professionals. This ensured timely action was taken to reduce risks and support safe outcomes.

People told us they felt safe living at the service and spoke positively about the care and support they received. Some people were aware that a serious incident had occurred.

Staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and were able to describe how they would recognise and report concerns. Safeguarding training was in place, and staff had completed relevant training to support them in their roles.

We reviewed safeguarding records which showed that where concerns had been identified, the registered manager had reported these appropriately and worked openly with relevant healthcare professionals and external agencies. Records demonstrated a transparent approach and a willingness to learn from events, with actions taken to help reduce the risk of recurrence.

People told us risks to their safety were well managed. One person said they no longer experienced frequent falls since living at the service, as appropriate equipment was in place to support their mobility.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the risks affecting people and spoke confidently about how these were managed. Risks were assessed in a person-centred way, with care plans clearly outlining the support people needed. These were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect people’s changing needs. We observed that where people required specific support, this was provided consistently. For example, people at risk of pressure damage were regularly repositioned in line with their care plans.

Environmental risks were also effectively managed. Systems were in place to monitor infrequently used water outlets and carry out regular legionella testing. Staff received fire safety training and were clear about the actions to take in the event of a fire.

The environment was purpose-built and maintained to a high standard. The service was clean, well-decorated and provided a range of comfortable areas where people could spend time or meet with relatives, including a well-maintained garden.

The registered manager provided evidence that the premises and equipment were regularly serviced and maintained. A dedicated maintenance team ensured any required repairs were identified and addressed promptly and effectively. This supported a safe, comfortable and well-maintained environment for people living at the service.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of suitably skilled and experienced staff. People told us staff responded when they needed assistance.

Staff spoke positively about staffing levels overall, although they said there were occasional shortfalls due to unplanned sickness. One staff member told us, “We are alright at the moment, we have a number of new starters. We did rely on agency staff previously, but there has been a recruitment drive. If we are short, managers try to use regular staff first before agency.” This demonstrated the provider’s approach to maintaining continuity of care.

Staffing rotas showed the provider was meeting assessed dependency levels. Systems were in place to respond flexibly to shortfalls and maintain safe staffing. Staff received appropriate training and support to meet people’s needs, ensuring they were able to provide safe and effective care.

Recruitment processes were safe. The provider carried out appropriate pre-employment checks, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and obtaining references, to ensure staff were suitable to work with people living at the service.

This helped ensure people were supported by staff who were available, appropriately skilled and trained, and safe to work in the service.

People told us the service was clean and well maintained. Staff understood their responsibilities in reducing the risk of the spread of infection and had received appropriate training. During our visit, we observed good infection prevention and control practices.

Housekeeping staff worked effectively to maintain a high standard of cleanliness. Records showed cleaning schedules were in place and consistently followed to ensure all areas of the service were regularly cleaned and maintained. This helped ensure a clean and safe environment, reducing the risk of infection for people living at the service.

People’s medicines were managed safely. People told us they received their medicines as needed, including ‘as required’ medicines which were administered promptly.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of administering time-specific medicines and explained how they organised their workload to ensure these were given at the correct times.

Systems were in place for the safe ordering, storage and management of medicines, and staff were clear about their responsibilities. Medicines errors were identified and responded to appropriately. The registered manager completed regular audits of medicines management, and we saw evidence of action plans being implemented where issues had been identified. This supported a culture of learning and continuous improvement, helping to reduce the risk of recurrence and ensure people received their medicines safely.