Dalemead Care Home Limited

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

People using the service, and their relatives told us the service was safe. Comments included, “Yes, it’s a nice place. Staff are very good, they come in and make sure I have everything.”

The atmosphere in the home was pleasant and relaxed. People were at ease and comfortable interacting with staff throughout our onsite assessment.

Managers and staff understood how to safeguard people. Staff knew what safeguarding meant and how to spot signs of potential abuse. Training records showed staff had received safeguarding training which meant they understood their responsibilities with regards to safeguarding. One staff member said, “Safeguarding is protecting people from abuse and harm.”

Managers demonstrated an understanding in how to respond to any safeguarding concerns that had been raised and were able to show us they took appropriate action to keep people as safe as possible. This included reviewing the concerns and using them as an opportunity to learn.
 

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.

We reviewed the care records for people who had an elevated level of risk. We found that the service had an assessment policy and process in place. People, relatives and professionals were included in this process and their input was documented when determining the risk management plan. Risk assessments were reviewed monthly and updated by the team leaders.

Risk assessments and management plans were person-centred and showed how people could be supported in the least restrictive ways. We saw evidence of people being able to move freely around the home, for example there are no locked areas within the home and access to all communal areas including the garden was unrestricted. A safety mechanism was in place, which alerted staff to people accessing the garden area so staff could support them.

Falls were being recorded in care notes. A manager told us how they had recently reviewed incidents relating to falls, identifying patterns and taking steps to mitigate risk by increasing staff at certain times of the day. They told us this has led to a significant reduction in the number of falls.

We found one person was receiving their medication covertly, and the rationale and best interest decision making was appropriately managed and documented, within the legal framework. This included assessments with the appropriate professional, and discussions with the person’s representative.
 

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for 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.

There were enough staff employed to keep people safe. Our observations on the day and feedback from relatives supported this.

Staff files contained evidence of recruitment checks including application forms, employment references, right to work, identity checks and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. This helps providers to make safer recruitment decisions.

Staff had the opportunity to discuss work related issues during individual supervision meetings and annual appraisals. Staff praised the quality of training they received.

Despite this, we found the providers oversight into the frequency of training was not clear. The training policy was out of date and included reference to out of date guidance. We raised this with the provider during the assessment who acted immediately and sent us an updated training policy reflecting current guidance.

The provider told us that they were in the middle of moving their training from one platform to another which would help them to monitor staff training more effectively.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.