Archived: Haythorne Place

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

This service scored 66 (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. However, this culture needed to be further embedded to ensure there was a continuous approach to improving care.

Most incidents and accidents were recorded and managed effectively. However, we found 2 incidents that had not been reported. This shows that not all incidents were captured in the system. There is a need to improve incident reporting to make sure all events are addressed, and lessons are learned to reduce future risks.

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 provider had processes in place to ensure safe system, pathways and transitions were maintained. This included an initial needs assessment at the start of a service being provided.

Staff worked closely with external professionals to ensure people’s needs were suitably met. Staff had made appropriate referrals to other health and social care services were needed to enable people safe continuity of 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 the risk of abuse and unsafe care. People told us, “I’m safe here and the staff are fine” and “It is alright for me here, I’ve been here a while now. I’m safe and the staff come quickly if I need them. They are easy to talk to and do look after us.”

Staff knew how to keep people safe and protect them from safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained and able to identify how people may be at risk of harm or abuse and what they could do to protect them. The registered manager was fully aware of their responsibilities to raise safeguarding concerns with the local authority to protect people.

Staff knew how to keep people safe and protect them from safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained and able to identify how people may be at risk of harm or abuse and what they could do to protect them. The registered manager was fully aware of their responsibilities to raise safeguarding concerns with the local authority to protect people.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People’s care and clinical records included information around individual risks and support staff needed to provide. For example, risks around mobility, falls and equipment use, skin integrity, health conditions, eating and drinking were assessed. However, we noted some plans would have benefited from clearer guidance on the management of risks. The registered manager told us they were working on improving this information. For example, we found moving and handling care plans would have benefitted from more detailed guidance to support staff in managing these risks effectively.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.There were a range of environmental checks in place. Equipment checks were also undertaken to support the delivery of safe care.

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. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staffing levels were determined by the number of people receiving care and support and their assessed needs.

We observed staff responding to people's needs in a timely manner and care was delivered in line with people's care plans. Staff told us there was always staff on duty to support people safely. One person said, “It is alright for me here, I’ve been here a while now. I’m safe and the staff come quickly if I need them. They are easy to talk to and do look after us.”

Appropriate recruitment checks were conducted prior to staff starting work, to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Records we looked at confirmed this.

There were processes in place for sharing information between staff. These included, a handover meeting, and daily flash meetings, to share information and improve practice

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.

Refurbishment was underway in some areas, but we found parts of the service that were worn out and not clean. For example, some raised toilet seats and shower chairs were rusty, making them hard to clean properly. Some kitchen areas were also not clean. For example, refrigerator seals were dirty and damaged, one cooker was dirty, and some carpets needed replacing.

The home did not have a proper system for disposing of infectious waste according to regulations. Care homes must have an infectious waste stream to ensure that the waste is disposed of in line with legislation.

Although the management team carried out infection control audits and the housekeeper regularly checked the environment, these checks did not pick up the issues we found. We raised these concerns with the management team, who said they would take immediate action to fix them.

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.

Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely. We observed part of the morning and lunchtime medicines administration. We found safe procedures were followed. Staff explained to people what medicines they were taking and asked if they needed any pain relief. Staff involved in the handling of medicines had received training about medicines management. Staff were assessed as competent to support people with their medicines. Audits and checks were completed, and actions taken where issues had been identified.