Hepworth 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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. For example, where incidents and accidents had occurred, the provider had reviewed these to reduce future risks.

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. We saw evidence of partnership working with health professionals such as GPs and dieticians. We saw evidence that leaders had assessed people’s needs, to ensure these could be met before they started using the service.

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. Staff had received safeguarding training. Staff we spoke with knew who they could report safeguarding concerns to externally if they needed to. A person told us, “I feel safe.”
 

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. For example, people had risk assessments and support plans in place for health conditions and where they could experience emotional distress. Staff we spoke with where aware of individual risks to people, such as the need to seek medical attention if a person experienced a fall while taking blood thinning medicines.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. For example, since our last inspection the provider had improved the safety of the environment by introducing gated stairs. This reduced the risk of people experiencing falls on the stairs. Other areas of the home had undergone refurbishment. This meant people were cared for in a safe environment.

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. We observed there were enough staff to promote people’s safety and meet their needs. Staff and leaders told us the provider had increased staffing levels since our last inspection; we observed staff being able to spend time with people taking part in activities and conversing with them. A relative said, “I think there are enough staff now and certainly you don’t hear the call bells going off for ages like you did before.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and promptly shared concerns with appropriate agencies. We observed Hepworth House was clean and free from any malodour. Where people had individual infection control related risks, the provider had adapted their environments to promote people’s wellbeing and safety.

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. We observed that medicines were stored and administered safely to people. There were systems in place to ensure staff who supported people with medicines were competent to do so. We observed staff sought consent and informed people before giving them their prescribed medicines. A relative told us, “There have been a few adjustments to [my relative’s] medication over the time there, but it is always through the GP and I get told of any changes.”