Snapethorpe Hall

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 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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The management team had good insight into the need to be open and honest and investigate and act upon concerns shared. They investigated, recorded and provided outcomes when incidents took place, and also ensured any lessons learned were shared to avoid future incidents. The staff told us they felt well trained and flash meetings and handovers were effective, allowing for good teamwork and for them to feel confident and able to do their jobs well. They felt management would listen and act upon concerns shared with them. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed regularly by the registered manager who analysed these for trends, patterns and commonalities. Complaints, incidents and safeguarding concerns were investigated with clear outcomes and lessons to be learnt identified. Actions were followed by the management team. The service had robust procedures to ensure a positive learning culture.

The service 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 assessed people to ensure their individual needs could be met. They then worked with people, their relatives and relevant health professionals to put a person-centred plan in place. We saw examples of how people were involved in their care. Where people were unable to make their own decisions, staff had followed the Mental Capacity Act to ensure care was appropriate. Care plans were detailed, and person centred. They included likes and preferences as well as what people needed. Regular monitoring and auditing of care practices were in place.This included review of records, staff practices and feedback from people, relatives and staff.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff received training in safeguarding. They understood how to recognise abuse and poor care and report this to their line manager and other relevant professionals. Staff had a good understanding of capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the need to ensure they were acting in the best interest of a person who lacked capacity. We observed kind and respectful interactions between staff and people. We did not observe any safeguarding concerns in relation to staff approach or the safe delivery of care. The service had a Safeguarding and Whistleblowing Policy in place which staff were familiar with.Safeguarding concerns was logged, investigated and clear actions recorded following investigation.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The management team had good insight into the need to be open and honest and investigate and act upon concerns shared. They investigated, recorded and provided outcomes when incidents took place, and also ensured any lessons learned were shared to avoid future incidents. The staff told us they felt well trained and flash meetings and handovers were effective, allowing for good teamwork and for them to feel confident and able to do their jobs well. They felt management would listen and act upon concerns shared with them. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed regularly by the registered manager who analysed these for trends, patterns and commonalities. Complaints, incidents and safeguarding concerns were investigated with clear outcomes and lessons to be learnt identified. Actions were followed by the management team. The service had robust procedures to ensure a positive learning culture.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe. There were codes on doors to protect people at risk of harm, but these codes were available to people who were not at risk. Staff carried out visual checks of equipment before use, reported concerns and took out of use any equipment that did not appear safe. Management completed daily checks, and this included checking fire exits were clear, and the environment was free from clutter and potential hazards to people. Safe systems were in place to ensure the building was maintained safely, including regular checks and audits. The environment was safe, clean and well presented.

Previous inspection breaches were found in relation to safe staffing. We found the service had made improvements and was no longer in breach of regulations. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe. People who preferred to stay in their rooms had access to call bells. The provider followed robust processes to ensure staff were recruited and inducted into their role safely. The provider used a dependency tool to assess how many staff were required to support people safely. This was reviewed regularly to allow for any change in people’s needs. Staff had a mandatory training regime and generally training was over 90% compliant for mandatory training. However, some staff felt the staffing was insufficient and felt they could not spend enough time with people just chatting. Some staff also said during busier periods, such as mealtimes and when getting people up, staff felt rushed and became tired.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of any infection spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe from the risks associated with infection control. They spoke about the importance of handwashing and effective wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE). They had a good understanding of appropriate waste disposal and the need to dispose of infectious waste appropriately. They also spoke about measures to contain infection. The management we spoke to were aware of the need to inform relevant professionals in the event of outbreak and the importance of sharing information and following advice from outside agencies. The service had clear roles and responsibilities in accordance with infection prevention and control. We looked at completed daily cleaning schedules which included high touch areas and clear guidance on what required cleaning. We saw regular completed audits of hygiene and cleanliness standards in the building and appropriate documentation and ordering of cleaning products. The service had an up-to-date infection control policy.

During the previous inspection, breaches were found in relation to safe management of medicines. We found the service had made improvements and was no longer in breach of this regulation. 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. Staff responsible for administering medication told us an electronic system was in place and staff had all received training. They felt sufficiently trained and their competency was regularly checked to administer medication. We observed a medication round. Medication was ordered, stored and administered safely to people. People were involved in reviews and assessments relating to their medication. The service had a Medication Policy that was up to date, clear and covered all aspects of medication management. Medication was regularly audited, reviewed and monitored.