Longwood Grange

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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People felt safe living at Longwood Grange. One person said, “There are always those you get on better with than others, but no one has ever made me feel uncomfortable.” One relative said, “My (relative) has been here 10 years and I wouldn’t have let them stay here if I wasn’t totally happy.” People we spoke with did not have any cause to raise concerns over any abuse or neglect.

Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. One staff member told us, “We all have a duty of care to each other, residents and staff to ensure people are safe from neglect or harm. If anyone see’s something they can report it to the manager.”

Records showed the registered manager had referred safeguarding incidents to the Local Authority (LA) and Care Quality Commission (CQC) appropriately.

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. Care records and risk management plans had been regularly reviewed and updated where needed.

Care records informed staff about risks associated with people’s health and wellbeing and the action they needed to take to mitigate identified risks. For example, 1 person’s care records showed they had experienced multiple falls. The home took appropriate steps to reduce this risk, including referring them to the falls team and using sensor mats throughout the premises. During our assessment, we observed staff response to sensor mat alarms and found they responded promptly when alarms sounded. We noted that some repositioning and nutrition records were not consistently accurate. This did not affect the quality of care provided and was attributed to documentation errors. The provider demonstrated that this issue had been addressed with staff.

People and relatives felt risks in the home were managed safely. One relative said, “The sensor mats are always in place and working. Staff are always around so if [Name] gets up from the chair or bed staff are with them in a flash. Since being here [Name] has not had a fall.”

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.

Staffing rotas were in place, and this demonstrated how many staff were available to care for people. A dependency tool was used to determine how many staff were required. People and their relatives told us staffing levels were generally sufficient, although mornings could be particularly busy and additional staff at those times would be beneficial.

We observed staff were present in lounge areas where people were seated and also saw them attending to people who were cared for in bed. A relative told us they had recently seen a person become slightly agitated. Staff arrived within seconds, spoke gently and calmly, and offered the person a baby doll to hold. The relative said they were amazed at how quickly the individual changed from being unsettled to appearing calm and nurturing, “just like a gentle mother with her newborn.”

Most staff said they felt there were enough staff on duty to safely meet people needs. One member of staff said, “At this present moment its ok. We can manage now.”

Staff were recruited safely, with appropriate pre-employment checks carried out before staff started working at the home which included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff had opportunities to learn, and any poor performance was managed appropriately.

Staff told us they received enough training to support them in their role, with a training matrix in place showing which courses had been completed. Staff supervisions had taken place. A staff induction was undertaken by staff who said they completed this when commencing their employment at the home.

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.