Archived: Aston House Care Home

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.

The last rating for this key question was 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 promoted a learning culture. Staff reported all accidents, incidents and complaints. Managers investigated these. They shared learning with staff. Comments from staff included, “We discuss learning in handovers and work together to investigate what went wrong” and “Families are always informed and involved.” Managers liaised with people using the service and their relatives to share their findings and explain what they were doing to make improvements to the service. Relatives confirmed this.

The provider had systems to analyse and review all adverse events to help identify any trends or patterns. They shared information from across different services with the registered manager who then cascaded learning to staff.

The provider had systems to ensure safe transitions between services. Managers assessed people’s needs before they moved to the home. They liaised with the person, relatives and professionals involved in their care. This helped them plan a person-centred move and make sure they could provide safe care.

The provider kept detailed information about people’s individual health and communication needs. They shared this with other professionals when people visited hospitals or other healthcare services. Staff told us they always escorted people to attend appointments if family members could not attend.

The provider had procedures to help safeguard people from abuse. Staff undertook training to understand these. Staff were able to describe how to recognise and report abuse.

People using the service told us they felt safe. There was information about how to report abuse on display for staff, people using the service and visitors to see.

The provider requested legal authorisations where restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for people who did not have the capacity to consent to these. Decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests and for their safety.

Staff assessed risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. They created risk management plans. Assessments and plans were regularly reviewed and updated. Staff understood about the risks for each person. The provider made sure staff were trained to support people in a safe way. For example, when supporting them to move, using equipment and with eating and drinking. Staff worked alongside external professionals to review planned care to make sure this reflected best practice guidance for mitigating risks.

The provider had procedures for dealing with emergencies. For example, how to respond in the event of a fire. Staff completed training and practices to understand about fire safety.

People using the service and their relatives thought that risks were well managed.

People lived in a safe and well-maintained environment. The building was suitably equipped and furnished. It was warm, light and well-ventilated. There were comfortable communal rooms and outside spaces. People had personalised their bedrooms.

The provider ensured people had the equipment they needed. This included specialist beds, equipment to help people move safely and, where appropriate, equipment to help prevent falls.

People using the service and relatives told us they liked the environment.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. The provider had good staff retention. Staff knew people well and understood their needs. People told us there were enough staff and they did not have to wait for care. Their comments included, “There is always plenty of staff around” and “There are enough staff on duty. You can always find someone.”

Staff were attentive when people needed assistance.

The provider had suitable procedures for recruiting staff. These included checks of their identity, competencies, knowledge and skills. New staff completed an induction and undertook a range of training. Staff had regular training updates. Managers met with staff to discuss and appraise their work.

The provider had procedures to help prevent and control infection. Staff undertook training about these procedures. Staff kept the service clean and carried out regular audits and checks on cleanliness. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) to use when needed.

The chef had effective systems for managing food safety and keeping the kitchen clean. There were appropriate facilities and arrangements for managing laundry.

People using the service told us they were happy with cleanliness and the laundry service. Their comments included, “They clean my room, and everything is kept neat and tidy” and “It is spotlessly clean. They even change the bed linen each day.”

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. There were systems for ordering, administering and monitoring of medicines. Staff were trained and deemed competent before they administered medicines. The provider ensured medicines were safely stored. Staff maintained appropriate records of medicines management. We found that medicines rooms and fridge temperatures were appropriately monitored.

The provider had a system to monitor and audit people’s medicines on a regular basis. Improvements had been made because of this. For example, a monthly audit by the provider found that medicines trolleys should be cleaned on a regular basis. As a result, an action plan was put in place to ensure medicines trolleys were cleaned each month.

We were assured that medicines related incidents were investigated properly with appropriate action plans. There were processes to ensure staff learned from these incidents to prevent them occurring again.

People told us they were happy with how medicines were managed. Relatives told us changes in prescriptions were discussed with them.