Dimensions Newton House

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 72 (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.

Incidents, accidents and near misses were recorded with clear details of what had happened, including what people were doing in the lead up to the incident. This helped staff identify situations which could escalate people’s anxieties. Staff took a pro-active approach to prevent situations escalating where possible and minimise distress for people.

Incidents were reviewed by managers to ensure action was taken to reduce the risk of a repeated incident. Staff told us learning from incidents was shared with them and gave them clear information on any changes to the way they needed to support people.

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.

The provider had received a recent compliment from a relative who praised the way they worked with different services to ensure a smooth transition. Information about people’s needs was reviewed each time a person stayed at the service, to ensure it was up to date. Examples included any changes to medicines or changes to risks people faced. People’s health conditions were documented, and they were supported to access services from a range of professionals including specialist epilepsy and nutrition nurses.

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.

Relatives said they felt people were safe when staying at Newton House. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities and said they completed regular safeguarding training. Staff were confident managers would take appropriate action if they reported safeguarding concerns but were aware how to raise these concerns outside of the organisation if they needed to.

Where appropriate staff had applied to the local authority for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations. The manager had a record of all DoLS applications that had been made, including details of any conditions to the authorisations.

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.

Relatives told us they felt risks were managed well and people were safe when they stayed at Newton House. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the risks people faced and how to support them safely. Staff told us risk management plans were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed. Specialist risk management plans, for example epilepsy protocols, had been developed with relevant professionals and had been regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed.

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 various health and safety checks to make sure the premises, and any equipment was safe. Equipment was being serviced regularly, and external contractors were used to check safety systems such as fire and water safety. Staff on site completed some checks such as fire alarms and means of escape routes in the event of a fire. Records demonstrated checks were completed in line with the provider’s timescales. We observed staff supporting people to use equipment safely.

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.

Staff had been recruited safely. All legally required pre-employment checks had been completed prior to staff starting work. Staff received an induction and regular training, specific to the needs of people using the service. During our inspection we observed there were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs. Staff were available to support people out in the community and to be present at the service and encourage people to engage with indoor activity. Staff said the number of staff scheduled varied, depending on the needs of people staying at the service. Staff felt they were able to meet people’s needs with the staffing levels provided.

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 service was clean and smelt fresh. All areas of the service were frequently cleaned and well maintained. Staff had appropriate access to personal protective equipment and had received training on infection prevention and control good practice.

People had their medicines as prescribed, however, there were some improvements needed to make sure medicines were consistently managed and recorded safely.

Where people needed ‘as required’ medicines, there was not always guidance available to help staff know when this medicine would be needed. Not all the ‘as required’ guidance that was in place was clear about when to administer certain medicines. For example, where there were variable doses to administer, guidance did not specify what dose to give and when. The manager took immediate action to address these shortfalls during the inspection, with new protocols giving clear guidance for staff available on the last day of the site visit.

Medicines administration records had been handwritten by staff with details of the prescriber’s instructions. However, these had not been checked by a second staff member to ensure they were transcribed correctly, in line with published guidance. Staff told us they always followed the prescribing instructions printed on the medicine packets to ensure they were supporting people to take the correct dose.