Farriess Court

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 required improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 understood their responsibilities to record and report any accidents or incidents. The registered manager implemented systems to ensure accidents and incidents were regularly analysed to identify any emerging themes or patterns to mitigate further risks and improve the care provided. Learning from events had been cascaded through the staff team and staff were informed on how risks were managed. For example, equipment was sourced and used to reduce the risk of harm for a person who experienced falls. Relatives told us they were kept up to date and informed of any accidents or incidents. One relative told us, “My [relative] is safe, I have no concerns. I receive a phone call straight away if anything happens. The home always sorts it out and keeps me up to date.”

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.

The registered manager completed a face-to-face assessment of people’s needs prior to them starting to use the service. This ensured people’s needs could be safely met. People had care plans and risk assessments which were based on the assessments completed and these were reviewed and updated when needed. People and their representatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

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 protected from abuse and avoidable harm. People told us they felt happy and safe using the service, we observed people to be familiar and comfortable with the staff supporting them. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to safeguard people if they had any concerns.

We found that the service implemented the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure people’s safety and had made appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications. DoLS is a legal framework in the UK toensure any deprivation of liberty for individuals is lawful, necessary, and in their best interests.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. 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 safely supported to live their day to day lives in line with their choices and preferences. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and how to support the known risks. One relative told us, “Staff communicate well with my [relative], staff know them well.”

Staff were kept informed about any risks and changes to people’s care and support needs through handover meetings. One member of staff told us, “Communication is very effective within the staff team using handovers, team meetings, walk rounds, supervision, surveys and our [secure] WhatsApp group chat. This ensures everyoneunderstandthe resident’s needs.”

People were observed to be supported in line with their care plans. For example, where people needed moving and handling support. Another person was supported to wear their glasses as this was identified as a mitigation for falls risks.

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.

During the inspection some issues were identified with equipment, for example, an unclean bath hoist chair, chipped coverings to a bath and toilet seat. The provider continued to work through their refurbishment plan to update the premises and assured us these would be addressed. Systems were in place to ensure repairs were fixed promptly once identified.

There were arrangements to monitor the safety of the premises through regular safety checks, which included fire safety, maintenance and equipment checks. The registered manager identified the opportunity to improve the system to more effectively identify health and safety issues and actioned changes to embed health and safety monitoring in the staff team. The registered manager planned to support the implementation of daily walk round checks with senior staff.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff available. Staff received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staffing levels were informed by the dependency needs of people using the service. During our inspection, staffing levels were in line with the assessed needs of the service.

The registered manager identified to make additional domestic support hours available to support provider’s improvement plan.

Communal spaces were observed to be supervised during our inspection. Overall, people, their relatives, staff and visiting professionals felt staffing levels were safe.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People told us the home was clean; however, they said it appeared tired and run down. We identified areas for improvement d during the inspection. For example, chipped paint on woodwork and walls, damaged and stained floor coverings, worn furniture. Theprovider was aware of the issues and had a plan for ongoing refurbishment of the home, prioritising health and safety issues. Since our last inspection in 2020, some rooms had been fully re-decorated, and some floor coverings had been replaced.

People were observed to be supported to maintain good personal hygiene. Staff followed good IPC practice. For example, using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during meals and personal care. Records evidenced a cleaning schedule was in place and followed by staff.The registered manager had recently begun to complete an IPC auditof the home to further inform the service improvement plan and achieve a good standard of IPC practice.

Medicines were managed safely in the home. Individual’s assessments provided information for staff to follow to support people to receive their medicines in the way they preferred. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Processes to ensure the safe use and management of controlled drugs were in place. Controlled drugs were stored as required, and regular checks on stock were documented.

Where people required medicines to manage behaviour, information was in place to provide appropriate guidance to identify when the medicine was required. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to manage signs of distress.