Philips 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 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.

The registered manager monitored and analysed records to identify any trends or lessons learned and communicated those with all staff. A health professional told us, “[Registered manager] is very focused on the residents and what is best for them. If I have any concerns, she makes sure they are fully investigated. She safeguards everything and sees everything as a learning opportunity to improve the service.”
 

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 supported people to complete and maintain care passports to be used to share crucial information with other services in the event of a person being transferred, for example, to hospital. The care passports contained details about people’s care and support needs as well as things that were important to them and their personal preferences, likes and dislikes. They were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained up to date.
 

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.

Staff had received up to date safeguarding training and knew how to report any incidents. A staff member said, “The safeguarding process at Philips Court is to report to the nurse/management. If I thought someone, I was supporting needed to be safeguarded, I would report it to the nurse in charge. However, if I felt as if I could not report it to the nurse in charge I would report it to a member of management.”

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been applied for in a timely way, and any conditions were appropriately added to people’s individual care plans. The registered manager recorded and reviewed them regularly.
 

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 assessed and managed risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing effectively. A relative told us, “[Person] has had a few falls and they have got him a wheelchair. He is reminded not to stand up (for safety), but he is very stubborn and he keeps trying to stand, even when he is strapped in (with a safety lap belt). The staff are very good with him and there is always someone watching out for him.”

People’s care records contained detailed risk assessments which supported staff to meet people’s needs whilst minimising the risks.
 

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 premises were safe. There were environmental risk assessments in place including fire, and regular checks and testing of the premises and equipment.

During site visits we identified that some wardrobes in people’s rooms were not attached to the walls. We discussed this with the registered manager, and they took immediate action to mitigate the risk.

During the night-time site visit we identified lifting equipment being stored in a small lounge on the first floor. We raised this with the registered manger and regional manager who took immediate action to have the items removed and discussed with staff involved about the importance of safety measures and practices. On the 2 occasions we returned as a part of this assessment, this room was checked and we did not observe any lifting equipment present.
 

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 registered manager determined staffing levels in line with people’s individual support needs. People felt there were enough staff to meet their needs. A person commented, "Staff are always there when I need them and they always help me." Throughout our site visits, staff were visible around the home. A staff member told us, “I feel as if there are enough staff to safely support the residents.”

A health professional told us, “The staff on the dementia unit in particular are very skilled and experienced with care for very complex residents. The nursing team on the unit have a wealth of knowledge and experience, as do the carers.”

Staff received a comprehensive induction and regular training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people effectively and safely. A staff member said, “I feel as if I have all the training to do my job well and safely. I felt the induction helped me a lot as I had 2 weeks of shadowing so I could learn about the residents and find out their needs and preferences. If I felt I needed more training on a particular thing there would be an opportunity for me to do the training.”

Staff were recruited in a safe way. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection policy and procedure which included all appropriate checks.
 

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. Staff followed the required infection control guidelines and wore appropriate PPE when supporting people. The home was clean and tidy. When asked about the home, a relative told us, “It is friendly, clean and very welcoming.”

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 administered, stored and managed safely. Staff ensured the medicines room and fridge were both maintained within the appropriate temperature range.

Staff responsibility for administering medicines were appropriately trained and regularly had their competence reviewed. A relatives commented, “[Person] gets her right medications all the time; they are really careful about it.”

Regular medicine checks and audits were carried out to identify any errors and take appropriate action.