Washington Lodge

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 69 (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. The provider had good systems to record and analyse incidents and accidents. The analysis was detailed and identified areas for improvement and lessons learnt.

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. People’s needs had been assessed prior to moving to Washington Lodge, this helped to determine whether the home could meet people’s needs.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff aimed to protect peoples’ their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People, relatives and staff said they felt Washington Lodge was a safe place to live. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were in place for all relevant people.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Some risk assessments needed updating to reflect people’s current needs. The registered manager had identified this and created individual action plans for each person. Relatives were highly involved in aspects of people’s care. However, management of this risk was not clearly assessed and documented. The registered manager said this was not usual practice and would be addressed immediately.

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 provider completed environmental risk assessments, including a fire risk assessment to help maintain a safe environment. Various health and safety checks were completed and equipment was regularly serviced.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support,
supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The registered manager acknowledged there was a high use of agency staff due to recent circumstances the provider had experienced. They said they aimed to use consistent agency staff to minimise the impact on people. People, relatives and staff commented on this and how this impacted the quality of people’s care. New staff were recruited safely. Staff received the training they needed for their role.
 

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 décor in the home needed refreshing to provide an appealing environment for people to live in. Although the home needed refurbishing, it was clean throughout. A relative said, “Cleanliness is okay, but the environment needs updating.”

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 and records confirmed the medicines people had received. Staff were trained to administer medicines correctly and had their competency assessed.