Amathea

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 78 (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 were aware how to raise accidents and incidents and were confident these would be followed up by management. For example, a member of staff raised concern around missing medication, and a lessons learned discussion occurred in a staff meeting regarding this.

One member of staff told us, “Anything I raise, gets done”. Another told us, “I've never seen any issues, if I saw something I would report it straight away”.

A staff member told us the registered manager, “Does a lesson learnt with us in staff meetings”. Lessons learned were also included in staff’s one to one supervisions.

The provider held monthly manager's meetings, for all managers across the organisation where lessons learnt from other services were shared.

The registered manager told us that shared learning was important to support good practice and put training opportunities in place for staff to ensure this happened, for example, shared learning from coroner's inquests with staff.

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.

We found evidence of thorough preadmission assessments being undertaken by senior staff within the home. This information then informed the persons care plan. A summary of the key areas of peoples care plans were available to print off and take to hospital if required.

We found the home worked well with other agencies and referred onto other services appropriately, for example a professional from another agency told us, “They will try everything possible to reduce the risk of placement breakdown or hospital admission. They are open and honest when they no longer feel able to meet a person’s needs and provide caring support to families.”

A professional who visited the home regularly told us, “Before I said anything, they had identified the issue being a falls risk,” and that the home was “very proactive in contacting us.”

The registered manager told us they had initiated ‘Grab bags’ to support people attending Accident and Emergency (A and E). These bags contained essential supplies such as food and fluids to ensure people were not at risk of dehydration whilst waiting in A and E.

The home has an on site defibrillator, which allows staff's immediate response to urgent heart conditions.

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.

Staff told us they were trained in safeguarding and were confident in identifying signs of abuse, reporting and escalating these appropriately.

We found evidence of clear safeguarding systems and processes and where safeguarding referrals were made in a timely manner to the Local Authority (LA) and to CQC. Recordings of safeguarding’s were clear, with follow up actions and information.

We saw safeguarding investigations were completed where appropriate and lessons learnt were shared with staff.

We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and supported Best Interest decisions. Mental Capacity Act assessments were in place where required.

We noted Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DOLS) authorisations were appropriately requested and recorded for people. Staff were aware of the need for DOLS for some people and were supportive of this.

A family member told us, “We get all the information, as we live away, I hold (Power Of Attorney) POA, but I rely on them to communicate with us and they do”. They also said “there is a DOLS in place and [relative’s] best interests plan and we do it all every six months, we have no issues”

People told us they felt safe in the home. One person said, “Of course I am safe here, very safe, they come if you call them.”

A family member told us, “I see plenty of staff when I go and I can always speak to someone, [relative] is absolutely safe there.”

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.

We found risk assessments were completed appropriately for people and recorded on their care plans. For example, risk assessments were in place for a person should they have a fall as the use of a hoist would not be appropriate.

We saw that unwise decisions were supported, for example, in relation to people choosing to smoke there was a designated safe area for them to do this.

We observed at mealtimes if people could not understand or decide what was being offered, or what to choose, staff brought plates for them to see the choice on offer.

We observed a notice board in the corridor which had explanations on it, around taking medication, giving consent and about people’s involvement in planning activities.

We saw notice boards with information for staff and visitors on how to speak to people with dementia, the standards of care expected and people’s involvement with choice and consent

The provider was fully aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We observed the home to be clean, bright and well furnished.

Lifts and stair wells were appropriately key coded, and lifts were regularly maintained and in good working order.

We found evidence of maintenance checks being recorded, signed off and actions taken as required.

Fire evacuation and drill procedures were in place and were recorded. A fire evacuation had been undertaken recently, and the staff team were complimented on the efficiency of this by the fire service.

We found people had access to the equipment they needed and that this was well maintained. We observed staff helping people to move with appropriate equipment, support and guidance.

Radiator covers were in place; window restrictors were seen to be effective and water temperatures were regularly monitored to ensure the safety of people who lived there.

All safety certificates were up to date.

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

There were strong recruitment processes in place to ensure all staff were experienced and competent to carry out their roles.

The management team used a dependency tool to ensure there were sufficient staff on shift, including evenings and weekends.

Poor performance was managed appropriately through supervisions, competency checks and policies and procedures. There were clear processes in place for disciplinary procedures.

Staff received appropriate mandatory training which was regularly refreshed and monitored by management through the use of an IT system. Staff told us they had received all necessary training and induction which had prepared them to undertake their roles safely.

Supervisions and appraisal were in place for staff on a regular basis and there were opportunities for staff development should they wish this, for example the support to be a deputy manager programme was offered.

People told us they felt there were always sufficient, well-trained staff. One person told us, “I am very safe here and there is plenty of staff.” Another told us, “The staff are very good, they do their best, they are very kind, they try to do their best for you.”

A family member told us, “Well they just swept us up in their arms and looked after us, [relative] couldn’t stay at home anymore and they have just been wonderful, the staff are excellent.”

A visiting professional told us, “There are enough staff, more than enough. When I need someone, a staff member is always available”. They also told us “I see some really good care. Staff interact with people very well, people's faces light up. Staff actually talk to people as humans; the place is their home.”

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 observed staff cleaning the home regularly during our inspection.

A family member told us, “It’s always a clean and well looked after place.”

We observed staff using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when attending to peoples ' personal needs. A staff member told us, “We have a good supply, we have had training on donning, doffing and disposal”.

Staff also told us, “Our trolleys are secure and lockable, all chemicals are kept locked away.”

Staff also told us if equipment broke then items are quickly replaced.

There were regular meetings for domestic and laundry staff to enable them to share issues and concerns with management.

Staff were aware of food safety and hygiene procedures, and we observed staff following these during mealtimes. For example, hand washing and wearing aprons.

Food hygiene records were seen to be up to date and appropriate.

Kitchen staff were knowledgeable and experienced in food storage preparation and handling.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. We found occasional shortfalls in medicine record keeping however, the manager took prompt action to address these. Medicines audits were effective in identifying any shortfalls and timely action was taken to drive improvements.

Individual written information describing people’s medicines needs and preferences was put into practice by staff when administering medicines. Records we checked showed people were having their regular medicines administered safely. Care home staff set an alarm to help ensure that ‘time sensitive’ medicines were given correctly. People who were able and wished to self-administer medicines were supported to do so. Staff also considered how people’s medicines needs would be met when away from the home, for example to take a short holiday, to help ensure people would continue to receive their medicines safely. Care home staff worked with other professionals to review people’s medicines and new medicines were promptly started. Medicines including controlled drugs were safely stored.

The registered manager had recently (May 2026) completed a comprehensive medicines audit. The audit identified some areas for improvement for example, in medicine record keeping. An improvement plan was in place and being monitored. Staff handling medicines had completed refresher training and repeated observed practice was planned. We visited shortly after this audit and similarly found occasional records relating to the management of medicines that needed some improvements.

We saw one example where a medicine had been incorrectly recorded on admission to the home, resulting in a lower dose of one medicine being given. Additionally, although staff we spoke with knew when people were prescribed ‘fluid thickeners’ there were occasional gaps in recording the consistency of the thickened drink provided. Most of the care plans we viewed clearly described how people’s medicines supported their care for example, in management of constipation. However, we saw one plan describing support for diabetes that did not include reference to a prescribed medicine for low blood sugars, and when it should be used. We raised these findings with the manager who took prompt action to address them.