Elwick Grange

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. Systems were in place to gather and analyse information from various sources, such as accidents and incidents, and this insight was used to drive improvements across the service. Lessons learned were consistently shared with all staff, ensuring that changes were understood and effectively embedded.

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.

Staff worked with a range of health and social care professionals ensuring people received joined - up care and support. A healthcare professional told us, “They are very protective of their residents and if they feel they are displaying clinical signs of deterioration they refer to appropriate services immediately.”

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.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse, and staff had completed appropriate safeguarding training.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out the legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the capacity to do so themselves. It requires that people are supported to make their own decisions wherever possible, and when they cannot, any decisions made for them must be in their best interests and use the least restrictive option.

The service was operating in line with the principles of the MCA. Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, best interests meetings had been held to ensure decisions were made appropriately.

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.

Individual and environmental risks had been clearly identified and appropriately managed. Records set out the measures needed to reduce these risks and supported staff to keep people safe. These records were routinely reviewed to ensure the information remained up to date, accurate, and complete.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People lived in a safe and well‑maintained environment. Regular health and safety checks were completed, emergency continuity plans were in place, and fire drills were routinely carried out to ensure people remained safe.

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.

The service followed safe recruitment practices. All required pre‑employment checks were completed, including verified references and appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. These provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staffing levels were aligned to the needs of the people using the service, ensuring enough suitably qualified and competent staff were available to provide safe and effective care.

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 home was clean and well maintained. Staff followed safe infection prevention and control procedures, including practising good hand hygiene and using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of infection spreading. IPC champions, who had received additional training, supported staff to remain at the required standards.

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 managed safely. Records were accurate and complete, and the service followed guidance for receiving, storing, administering and disposing of medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed, and staff provided attentive support during administration.