Dignity Residential 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 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 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.

Staff confirmed there was a culture of openness at Dignity Residential Care Home which meant they felt encouraged and enabled to report accidents and incidents because they knew there would be a positive response. The registered manager valued staff raising concerns and considered them integral to learning and improvement.

There was a robust and detailed procedure in place for reporting and recording accidents and incidents. All events were reviewed, analysed and monitored for any trends or patterns. This ensured events were responded to appropriately.

Where concerns were identified, the registered provider looked for ways to further improve the service. Learning from events was shared with staff at all levels in the home by the registered manager. This meant that the risk of recurrence was reduced and managed.

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 registered manager worked closely with a multi‑disciplinary team to ensure people received safe, well‑coordinated care. This included regular communication and joint working with professionals such as social workers, GPs, district nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and safeguarding teams. The registered manager coordinated care plans, and ensured information was shared appropriately so that all professionals worked together to meet people’s needs and achieve positive outcomes. Health professionals confirmed the service was proactive in raising concerns promptly and in a timely manner, and that staff followed guidance appropriately. One visiting professional said, “The manager is excellent and seeks advice promptly whenever it is required. She is proactive and consistently follows up on medication matters.” Another said,” The staff are effective at recognising deterioration in people’s health, managing changes in medication, and ensuring families are kept well informed.”

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 told us they felt safe and had no worries or concerns. People felt confident they could raise concerns if they needed to. One relative said,” People are definitely safe and well cared for here.”

People were safeguarded from abuse and harm. The registered manager understood their responsibility to refer any safeguarding matters to the appropriate agencies. Staff received safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding about how to recognise and report abuse and poor care.

During our site visit we saw kind and respectful interactions between people and staff. Staff were seen to offer people choices and seek consent before supporting. The atmosphere in the home was warm and inviting. Staff said they would be happy for a relative or friend to live at the home and felt they would be safe.

People’s care records showed the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place or being sought to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] authorisations were being met. Renewals of authorisations for DoLS were completed within the required timescales.

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.

Person-centred risk assessments were in place and tailored to each individual. These covered key areas such as medicines management, nutrition and hydration, breathing, moving and handling, and pressure care.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual risks and how to manage these safely. They used their knowledge of people to develop detailed and personalised risk assessments, which identified risks to people and staff and clearly outlined actions to minimise those risks. Risk assessments were comprehensive, regularly reviewed, and reflected people’s assessed needs, supporting their safety while promoting independence.

People had personalised emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place. These clearly set out the support required to enable people to evacuate the building safely in the event of an emergency, such as a fire.

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 service was clean, tidy and free from odours. There were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. People’s individual needs were met by the adaptation, design, and decoration of the premises. People had a variety of spaces in which they could spend their time, and their bedrooms were personalised.

Environmental safety checks had been completed covering areas such as fire safety, gas and electrical installations, water systems and equipment maintenance.

The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. Staff worked well together and received regular support, supervision and opportunities for development, which helped them provide safe and personalised care. However, leaders identified gaps within some staff files, including missing or incomplete information. The provider took action to address these gaps and strengthen recruitment and record‑keeping processes to ensure continued safe practice.

People said they liked the staff supporting them and support was available in a timely way. One person said, “The staff are lovely” and a relative commented, “There is enough staff. They are always around and I’ve never seen any resident in difficulty without staff being there. The staff are regulars. I don’t think I’ve seen any agency workers. All staff are friendly and I see the same faces.”

Staff raised no concerns about staffing levels. People were supported appropriately by staff in a timely manner throughout our visit. There were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs and respond to their requests. Staff were visible and available in communal areas and people did not wait long for their support. Staff supported people at their own pace and treated people kindly and with respect.

Staff were well trained and competent in their jobs. Staff received training, which enabled them to feel confident in meeting people’s needs and identify changes in people’s health.

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.

People confirmed that the home was clean and tidy with a homely feel. One relative, said “It’s [the home] spotless, lovely and clean.”

The environment was safe, clean and well cared for. Personal protective equipment PPE was available throughout the building and easily accessible for staff. The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. There was an infection control lead in the service and there were good systems in place to monitor routine cleaning. Staff received training in infection control and had access to personal protective equipment.

Infection control audits were completed on a regular basis to ensure the safety of the layout and hygiene of the premises. The provider’s infection prevention and control policy was up to date.

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 received, stored, administered and disposed of safely. Safe procedures were followed. Staff explained to people what medicines they were taking and asked if they needed any pain relief. People were provided with a drink to take their medicines with, and staff were patient and respectful.

Audits and checks were completed, and actions taken where issues had been identified.

Staff received training about medicines management and were assessed as competent to administer medicines.