Stockton Lodge 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has

remained the same. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 promote good practice.

Safeguarding incidents, complaints, and accidents were checked to spot any repeat events, and

the findings were used to make improvements in the service. Lessons learned were

communicated to staff and practice was changed where needed. The registered manager was

responsive to feedback and took immediate action to mitigate risks effectively. One person told

us, “I’m safe here. I like to be as independent as possible; the staff help me when I need it."

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. Assessments were carried out before people moved into the service to make sure their needs and preferences could be met, whilst also considering the needs of people already living at the home. Staff worked with external partners such as district nurses, GP’s and other specialist teams to make sure people received timely and appropriate care. Feedback we received from health professionals involved in the service was positive.

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. One staff

member told us, “We are all encouraged to report any concerns such as bruising or unexplained

injury. We would go to the senior first but would also report to the manager to be on the safe

side.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering

person-centred care and treatment.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives. Staff supported

them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Staff demonstrated a clear

understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a

legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental

capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received training regarding the MCA and appropriate

policies were in place.

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. People had individualised care plans in place to identify and manage risks and to guide staff to support people to remain safe. These were regularly reviewed to ensure the information was up to date. Staff supported people to take positive risks where appropriate for the individual.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did

not always make sure equipment, facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

On the first day of our visit we found there was some issues with cleanliness and broken

equipment in communal bathrooms. This was addressed promptly by the management team to

enable them to be clean and 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. The provider checked to make sure staff were competent to carry out key tasks. Staff members confirmed they had opportunities for training and development. Staff were recruited safely with the relevant checks in place.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect

and control the risk of it spreading.

On the first day of our visit we found issues with infection prevention and control practices and

some communal areas of the home were not always clean and tidy. Bathrooms and toilets were

not always cleaned effectively; people’s belongings were left in them cluttering the area and this

could cause potential cross contamination risks to people. These issues were addressed by the

management team immediately and plans were put in place to reduce risks of these issues

happening again. When we returned for a second day we saw significant improvement.

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 managed, stored and given to people safely. Records were in place and were regularly monitored by the management team. People were supported to have their medicines in a person-centred way and had plans in place to make this happen. One person told us, “I trust the staff, they seem to be well trained. They treat me properly and bring my medicines on time.”