Green Acres

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 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.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed to identify any actions that could be taken to prevent a recurrence. Lessons were learned to identify and embed good practice. Learning from incidents was shared with staff at team meetings.

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

There were procedures in place to ensure people’s transition from other services was well-managed. Each person had a hospital passport, which contained important information about them to be shared with medical staff in the event of a hospital admission.

The provider worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns appropriately when necessary.

Staff attended safeguarding training in their induction and had access to regular refresher training. Staff knew how to recognise potential abuse and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns they had.

Where people were subject to restrictions for their own safety, the provider had applied for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are designed to protect people who lack the mental capacity to consent to their care or treatment, especially when that involves restricting their freedoms.

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.

Assessments had been carried out to identify and mitigate any risks involved in people’s care. For example, some people received additional support when in their local community and a missing person profile (MISPER) was in place for each person, which contained important information to be shared with the police should a person go missing. People’s care plans outlined the support they needed to take positive risks.

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 was safe, accessible and well-equipped. Communal rooms were comfortable and homely, with people's artwork displayed on the walls. People's bedrooms were personalised according to their tastes and interests. All bedrooms had an en suite bathroom. The home had a large, well-maintained garden, which was well used by people during our visits.

Staff carried out regular health and safety checks, including fire safety checks. A personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) had been developed for each person, which recorded the support they would need in the event of an emergency.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective induction, training and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s needs.

There were always enough staff on duty to provide people’s care and keep them safe, including at night. Staff had access to management support when they needed it, including out of hours.

Staff had access to the ongoing training and support they needed to carry out their roles. This included mandatory and service-specific training, which was tailored to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills to understand and meet people’s needs.

Staff received regular individual supervision, which they told us was beneficial. One member of staff said, “It is very useful, it keeps you on track. We are asked about our progress, how we are feeling, what we would like to achieve.” Another member of staff told us, “It is helpful to have your own [supervision] time because then you can really talk about everything.”

Staff were recruited safely. The provider carried out pre-employment checks including obtaining a Disclosure and Barring Service certificate. Disclosure and Barring Service checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Staff assessed and managed the risk of infection. They controlled the risk of it spreading and understood their responsibility to share concerns with appropriate agencies if necessary.

Staff attended training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and understood how to protect people from the risk of infection. Staff carried out regular cleaning, and there were checklists in place to ensure good hygiene was maintained in all areas of the home. We observed that all areas of the home were clean and hygienic during our visits.

Staff made sure people’s medicines and treatments were managed safely and reviewed regularly. Staff knew and respected people’s preferences about their medicines. For example, one person preferred to take their medicines with food. Staff had checked with the pharmacist that this method of administration was acceptable. No one received their medicines covertly (without their knowledge). All the people living at the home had an annual review of their medicines.

Staff received training in medicines management and their competency was assessed before they were authorised to administer medicines. Staff carried out daily medicines checks and medicines were audited regularly as part of the provider's quality monitoring processes.

Medicines were stored in a secure, lockable cabinet, with separate secure storage for medicines which required additional precautions should these be prescribed. People's individual medicines were stored in a secure cabinet in their rooms.

On our first visit to the home, we found 2 minor shortfalls with medicines recording. The registered manager had addressed these issues by the time of our second visit.