Abbeyfield Winnersh

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 inspection we rated this key question Good. At this inspection 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. Relatives felt they were informed about their loved ones. One relative said, “The Manager is very helpful, she generally is and always responds to emails.”

Any changes to people’s care planning and risk management had been promptly made and shared with the wider staff team. A staff member told us, “There is now consistency on messaging and communication and new ways to learn and we now have more checks and meetings.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Staff worked in partnership with other professionals such as GP’s, physiotherapists, dentists and community nurses to support people to promptly access healthcare when required. The manager told us, “We work closely with the local Surgery and the GP visits weekly. We also work alongside SALT (speech and language therapist), wheelchair service, district nurses, DOLS assessment team, and the mental health team for individual cases when referred. The Care Home Support team visit once monthly to complete clinical reviews and assist with further training if requested.” We saw records of professional visits were held in people’s care plans and included any advice and guidance for staff.

People were safe. One relative told us, “I do feel that (person) is safe, it is a big factor for us to know there are no major problems or concerns.” Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report concerns. We spoke with staff about keeping people safe. One said, “We know what to do, yes, it is a safe place for residents (people).”

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.

The provider did not always work 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.

A risk management system was in place and risk assessments were held in care plans. These provided staff with guidance on how to manage the risks and these were regularly reviewed.

However, some risk assessments did not always contain sufficient detail to support staff to consistently keep people safe. For example, one assessment stated, ‘Person does not require assistance to get up from bed, as long as her profile bed is at the right height level.’ There was no indication within the risk assessment as to what the ‘right height level’ was.

Where appropriate, mental capacity assessments were in place to safeguard people’s rights in relation to decisions about any risks. However, not all assessments contained sufficient detail that decisions were made on people’s behalf appropriately. For example, one person had a relative who had been appointed as having Lasting Power of Attorney in relation to the person’s health and welfare, but it was not clear in the assessment whether this relative had been involved in the decision making process. We raised this issue with the manager who told us they would review mental capacity and risk assessments immediately.

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 home had fire safety equipment to meet standards and staff had completed the relevant fire training. The home was clean and free from malodours and designed to be dementia friendly. The windows all had window restrictors in place, and signage helped people navigate around the home.The building was built over two storeys with four circular, designed buildings, on a radius from a central hub containing reception, dining, kitchen, lounge and other facilities.There are several outside garden areas and internal courtyards, all with distinctive features to encourage people’s interest and participation. There was also a roof space, including a terrace where people could sit safely.

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. One staff member said, “We have enough staff for the size of the home, and no concerns that there is ever a safety issue with staff numbers.”

The provider had robust recruitment systems in place to ensure people were supported by well trained, experienced staff. Background checks were conducted to ensure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Throughout the inspection, we saw staff responded to people promptly and had time to interact with people whilst supporting them. Staff were also supported to work on their own initiative. For example, 3 people missed mowing their lawns, so [staff member] obtained a petrol mower and they all took it in turns to mow the grounds. We saw these people were really energised by the freedom and independence, and they all remembered how to start and stop the mower, which brought them joy and more memories to share with the staff.

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.

We saw staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) during personal care. Staff understood the need to wear PPE and how to manage the risk of infection. Cleaning schedules were in place and people’s rooms were maintained to a high standard. Toilets and bathrooms were clean and regularly checked.

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 received their medicine as prescribed. Staff had been trained to administer medicines and their competency to do so was regularly checked. Records confirmed any medicine errors were reported and investigated. One staff member told us, “The local authority told us to report everything (medicine errors) and therefore I will. Our medicine management is now very safe.”

People’s medicines were regularly reviewed by the GP and the digital system helped ensure best practice through alerts, enforced workflows and inventory to help the home manage medicines efficiently.