Collingwood 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 inspection, 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 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 positive learning culture where staff reflected on safety, listened to concerns, and used incidents to improve care. Accidents and incidents were monitored and analysed to identify trends and themes so that action could be taken to prevent recurrence.

An electronic system was used to support oversight. It provided a clear dashboard of performance across all areas of the home. This enabled managers to monitor trends, track actions and maintain real-time oversight of quality and risk.

This learning was translated into practical improvements. For example, a foot measuring device had been purchased to ensure people were supported to wear correctly fitting footwear to help to reduce the risk of falls.

The provider worked with people, families and health professionals to maintain safe systems of care and ensure continuity when people moved between services.

Staff completed pre-admission assessments and hospital passports so that key information followed people into and out of the service. Hospital passports initially did not include a body map, but this was addressed promptly after discussion with the registered manager. Regular handovers, “flash” meetings and multidisciplinary communication meant staff shared information quickly when people’s needs changed. Health and social care professionals gave positive feedback about communication at the home and described it as effective and well-coordinated.

Relatives also told us staff provided good support when people moved into the home. For example, a relative explained their family member had been anxious when they first arrived, but staff took time to understand their individual needs. They said, “They got to know their little quirks and what to say to settle them down.”

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and were committed to keeping people safe.

People told us they felt safe living at the service. One person said, “Oh yes, I’m definitely safe. I’m so glad I came here. The staff are well trained and they’re lovely people.” Another person told us, “I’m not frightened in here whatsoever.” Relatives were also confident that people were protected from the risk of abuse and harm. One relative said, “She is very safe and the staff are superb in helping her.”

Staff we spoke with demonstrated a clear understanding of safeguarding procedures. No safeguarding concerns were raised during our assessment.

The provider worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and ensured people were supported to make their own decisions wherever possible. Where people lacked capacity, appropriate processes were followed to ensure decisions were made in their best interests and in the least restrictive way. Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been submitted to the local authority in line with legal requirements which helped to ensure people’s rights were upheld and any restrictions were lawful and regularly reviewed.

Staff involved people and those important to them in assessing and managing risks, to ensure care was both safe and enabling.

People told us they felt safe living at the service. One person said that while there were sometimes disagreements between people, due to the nature of their conditions, staff responded quickly to manage these situations. Although this occasionally made them feel “uneasy” the intervention of staff helped to ensure situations were resolved promptly and safely.

Electronic risk assessments were used to record and monitor areas such as falls, health conditions, distressed behaviours and day-to-day risks. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of these risks and how they were managed.

Risk assessments were also completed to support people to take part in meaningful activities safely. This enabled people to enjoy experiences that were important to them while risks were carefully considered and managed. For example, people were supported to take part in activities such as ice skating, with appropriate risk assessments in place.

The environment and equipment met people’s needs and supported their safety, comfort and independence. Bedrooms were personalised to reflect people’s preferences, and the home was clean and well maintained. There were suitable communal areas for dining and socialising, as well as access to an outdoor garden space.

Appropriate equipment was in place to support people’s needs, including moving and handling equipment. Regular checks were carried out on equipment and the premises to ensure they remained safe and fit for purpose.

Staff showed a personalised approach to managing environmental risks, ensuring people could live safely without unnecessarily restricting their independence. For instance, where 1 person was at risk of bumping into furniture within their room, staff carefully adapted the environment by repositioning furniture and replacing items to create safer access routes. The service was awaiting the installation of an alarm on the external gate to reduce the risk of it being left open by delivery drivers.

The provider ensured there were enough suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to provide safe and effective care. Staff worked well together as a team, supporting one another to meet people’s individual needs in a consistent and coordinated way.

Staff received the necessary training, support and supervision to carry out their roles effectively. Staff spoke positively about their opportunities to develop. One staff member said, “I love learning and love training.” A number of staff had additional roles as champions in specialist areas which helped promote best practice and maintain high standards of care across the home.

Staffing levels were planned and monitored using a dependency tool. During our visits, we observed there were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely way. People received support when they needed it and staff were visible and accessible throughout the home.

Feedback regarding staffing was mixed. Some relatives and staff felt there were enough staff, while others felt that additional staffing would be beneficial at times. A whole-home approach to staffing was embedded. We observed non-care staff, including lifestyle coordinators and domestic staff, supporting care staff when needed. The operations support manager explained, “Whether it is housekeeping, catering, activities, maintenance or care staff, colleagues step in to support each other so that residents never feel the impact during busier periods.”

Recruitment processes were safe. The provider carried out the necessary pre-employment checks to help ensure staff were suitable for their roles. Agency staff had not been used for over 3 years, which helped contribute to the consistency and continuity of people’s care.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection and took steps to prevent it spreading. The service was clean and welcoming. Staff followed infection prevention and control procedures in line with current guidance and their training which included the correct use of personal protective equipment and hand hygiene practices.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the cleanliness of the home. One relative told us, “The rooms are always clean and they have just bought new furniture,” while another described the home as “spotless.”

Overall, medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. We found some minor shortfalls in medicines recording, but these were addressed promptly once identified and there was no evidence that anyone had been placed at risk of harm. Staff followed appropriate processes for the safe storage, administration and disposal of medicines.

Staff competencies were carried out to ensure safe medicines management practices. Regular audits were also undertaken, with actions identified and completed.