Rathside Rest 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. 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 72 (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.Staff demonstrated a positive learning culture where they felt able to raise concerns and understood how to report incidents. Staff told us they recorded incidents, and discussed learning during team meetings, with one saying, “I am absolutely able to raise concerns, and they would deal with it”. Relatives consistently described staff as responsive and proactive, including contacting them promptly if anything occurred, which supported a culture of openness and improvement. Lessons from audits such as falls, pressure area care and medication were reviewed through governance processes, although some actions required were not always fully evidenced as completed.

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’s care and support needs were understood at the point of admission, with staff receiving handovers and reviewing hospital and referral information before putting care plans in place. Relatives told us communication during transitions was effective, with staff keeping them updated about hospital admissions, falls or changes in health. Records showed staff worked with healthcare partners including GPs, district nurses and specialist teams, ensuring joined‑up and timely support. People moving between rooms were also consulted and supported, demonstrating person‑centred transition planning.

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. Management submitted applications to lawfully deprive people of their liberty when required and staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act, ensuring practice remained lawful and safe.People and relatives consistently told us they felt safe, describing staff as caring, respectful and competent. One relative told us, “[Person] is being safely cared for and I’ve no concerns”. Staff were confident in recognising and escalating safeguarding concerns and confirmed they received safeguarding training, using their learning in daily practice. People knew who they would speak with if they had concerns, reinforcing a safe culture.

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.Risk assessments were detailed and covered a wide range of needs including falls, choking, pressure area care, continence and mental capacity. Staff told us they had enough information in care plans to manage risk safely and monitored people closely, explaining how they supported people to make choices even where risks were present. Relatives said staff responded quickly to changes, for example escalating concerns to healthcare partners and ensuring timely interventions. Staff were trained in managing distressed behaviours and understood when less restrictive approaches or safeguards should be used.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The environment was generally clean and odour‑free, and relatives described it as clean, tidy and comfortable. However, we found that wardrobes were not secured to the walls, indicating that this had not been identified as a potential risk to people. The management team responded immediately to our concerns and completed the required work during the assessment. Some maintenance checks were not fully evidenced, including daily and weekly premises checks, meaning the provider could not demonstrate consistent oversight. Updated documentation was introduced to ensure that all maintenance checks were evidenced. While investment was underway, including new furniture and refurbishment, the shortfalls identified meant the environment did not yet meet a consistently good standard.

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.We found there were enough suitably skilled staff on duty to meet people’s needs safely and in a timely way. The provider used a dependency tool to calculate the required care hours. Staff told us they received a structured induction with shadowing, regular online and practical training such as moving and handling. The management team completed frequent competency checks to ensure practice was safe. Staff said they felt well supported by managers, and there were opportunities to progress, for example from carer into senior roles. Relatives and visiting professionals consistently reported that there were enough staff who knew people well and responded promptly, with one relative telling us, “whenever I visit there always seem to be enough staff around to help [Person] when they need them” and a community nurse describing the home as “very responsive” and “well organised.”

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.Staff understood when to use PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), how to dispose of it safely and what to do during an outbreak. Cleaning schedules and kitchen hygiene checks were in place with a food hygiene rating of ‘5’. The therapy‑dog risk assessment also demonstrated safe IPC management for animal‑assisted activities, with controls for allergies and hand hygiene.

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 and relatives told us staff managed medicines safely, with one noting, “They look after [Person]’s medications… there’s never been a problem with that.” Staff received regular competency checks, completed annual training and worked closely with GPs and district nurses to review people’s medication needs. Medication audits were taking place and no major concerns with administration or storage were identified, although some required actions following audits were not always fully evidenced as completed. PRN (as required) medicine effectiveness was not consistently recorded, which was highlighted in our feedback. The manager acknowledged our observations and planned to improve the recording of actions taken.