Finborough 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 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. 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 ensured accidents and incidents were regularly analysed to identify any emerging themes or patterns to mitigate further risks and improve the care provided. Records showed that learning from events had been cascaded through the staff team to inform them on how to safely manage identified 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.

Assessments were completed before people moved into the service. There were systems in place to facilitate safe transfers for people between care services. People’s needs were assessed using information obtained from other health and social care professionals, relevant representatives and the person themselves. Care plans provided guidance to staff on how best to support the person. Staff followed instructions safely and effectively working closely with external professionals, such as the mental health team, occupational therapists, pharmacists, district nurses and the GP to ensure people received safe care and treatment.

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 had safeguarding systems and processes to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and protect individuals from abuse and neglect. Safeguarding records were maintained, documenting all incidents and the corresponding actions taken to mitigate future risks.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns about abuse or neglect. This included raising concerns within the service and, if needed externally to relevant stakeholders. A staff member said, “I have an excellent working relationship with the registered manager, any concerns are taken to them including any safeguarding’s. I am fully aware of the contacts available with the local authority safeguarding team and our head office support team.”

People can only have their freedom restricted for care and treatment if there is a legal process in place. In care homes, this is managed through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider regularly checked and monitored these safeguards. Each person’s care plan included details about their capacity and any DoLS in place, explaining what this meant for their support. When people needed help to make decisions, staff recorded how choices were made in the person’s best interests.

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.

Staff knew people very well and supported people to manage risk while maintaining their independence and the service promoted positive risk taking. For example, people were assessed for risks related to diabetes, catheter care and mobility. Relevant support and equipment were provided, where required, to help minimise potential risks. We saw that people were comfortable when being transferred by the staff using specialist equipment. One person told us, “It is very nice here, staff are very good, I do feel safe in the hoist, very safe. They [staff] take their time and the care is good.” Care plans contained information about people’s preferences and views in relation to decisions about risk ensuring that risks were identified, assessed and managed in a way that balanced safety with individual choice.

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 design of the premises was safe and met people's needs. The provider was investing in the service with planned improvement works to the building underpinning the continual development of the service. This included the lift being updated and refurbished with a voice speaker.

The provider’s systems assessed and maintained the environment and equipment used, for example, fire alarm system, portable appliances and gas safety. Checks and audits were also carried out on water safety, call bells and regular fire drills were conducted. One person told us, “I feel safe here, there is total security, staff make me feel safe, [maintenance person] checks the buzzer [call bells] are working properly, very through here, they take our safety seriously.”

People had their own bedrooms which they personalised with furniture and belongings. People had equipment they needed to help keep them safe, such as wheelchairs, walking aids, and bath and shower equipment. These were regularly checked to make sure they were fit for purpose.

People had up to date personal evacuation plans to ensure staff evacuated them safely in an emergency.

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.

On the days of the inspection, we observed suitable staffing levels. People’s requests for care and assistance were responded to in a timely manner. Staff told us there was sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. One member of staff said, “There is enough staff, everyone is up in good time at Finborough and importantly when they want to be up. Senior staff delegate staff in the morning and it is done fairly. You have different levels of experience, some new staff and some who have been here awhile. This is considered in the allocation, it is not just pick and choose, staff get the chance to work with different residents and staff during a shift but with the senior’s presence to make sure it works well.” Another member of staff said, “There is always going to be that mad situation where it seems like half the home all has a need at the same time. In these rare moments I have seen the [registered manager] come onto the floor to assist.”

An established staff team who knew people well and how to meet their needs was in place; staff retention was good, turnover was low and morale was high. Staff were recruited safely, with appropriate pre-employment checks carried out before they started working at the service which included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Staff had received appropriate training to enable them to safely carry out their roles, and they received ongoing support through regular supervisions, appraisals and staff meetings. There were opportunities for staff to professionally develop including undertaking relevant qualifications within the care sector.

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.

The environment and equipment were clean, and risks associated with infections were assessed and well managed. There were regular checks and audits of cleanliness and hygiene. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control, health and safety, and food hygiene.

People and relatives told us the service was clean and hygienic. One person said, “They [housekeeping] have been in this morning to clean, they are friendly, place is immaculate.” A relative told us, “The standard of cleanliness everywhere is excellent.”

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’s medicines were administered safely. People and relatives told us they received their medicines when they needed them. One person said, “Medicines are there on time, never missed them. I had pain this morning in my knees which is why I pressed the buzzer [call bell] and they [staff] came quickly and were polite with it. I have tablets twice a day and one at night. They [staff] check up on me during the night; paracetamol stops my pain.” A relative told us, “[Family member’s] medication is securely and professionally administered to them, always with their needs in mind. [Family member] has recently been suffering with difficulty swallowing and every care has shown to ensure medication is taken safely and appropriately.”

We observed good practice when staff were administering people’s medicines. Staff explained the medicine being provided and ensured people had access to a drink and were not rushed. Where people had swallowing difficulties staff had liaised with the GP and pharmacy to ensure medication was provided in suitable formats such as liquid or patches helping to minimise the risk of harm and ensure medicines were taken safely.

Electronic systems, including auditing processes, supported the safe management of medicines, and leaders demonstrated good oversight and compliance with legal frameworks. Medicines were regularly checked, stock levels tallied, and PRN protocols were consistently followed. Staff received training and induction in medicines management, with ongoing competency assessments. Senior staff carried out regular audits signed off by the registered manager to ensure compliance with procedures.