Whittle Hall House Care Residence

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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.

People told us they felt safe and were treated well. 1 person said, “Yes I feel very safe” and another person said, “Treated fine, nothing to worry about.” Family members were confident their relative was kept safe, their comments included, “I feel they [relative] are safe here,” “I think it’s a lot better than it used to be” and “Yes definitely (safe).” People and family members told us the home was kept clean and hygienic with one person commenting “Yes, (clean) I’d mention it if it wasn’t.” Family members comments included, “Yes, very (clean)” and “Always smells lovely.” People and family members told us there was enough staff and they were good at their job. 1 person said, “Do a good job” and family members commented, “They [staff] seem too (know what they are doing)” and “Yes but does vary between regular and agency staff.” Family members told us their relative received their prescribed medicines on time. A family member commented, “Yes, just had a recent review” and another said, “Yes, they have recently tweaked medication, and [relative] is a lot calmer now.”

Family members told us they felt their relative was kept safe at the home and were confident about raising concerns should any arise. 1 family member told us, “I would raise with any nurse” and another told us, “Anything I feel isn’t right I raise, and it’s dealt with straight away.” Family members told us they were told about any incidents involving their relative. Their comments included, “Me and my sister are both told, relative had a fall last night and we were called straight away” and “I am told everything that happens.”

Family members provided mixed feedback when asked if they were involved in their relative’s care plan reviews. Their comments included, “Yes, always discuss any changes” “Not since came in” and “No, but we are updated about any changes.” We discussed family members comments with managers to highlight potential improvements in this area.

Family members provided mixed feedback when asked if they knew the manager, their comments included, “Yes, saw them when I first came to visit” “Yes but can’t remember her name” and “No don’t know who it is.”

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Managers listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. For example, managers and staff understood the providers systems and process for reporting and recording safety events such as accidents and incidents. Records evidenced detailed analysis of each event and lessons learnt and how they were shared with staff to improve practice.

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. For example, staff worked well and shared relevant information with other professionals such as specialist nursing teams, dieticians and speech and language therapists (SALT).

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. For example, managers and staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities for protecting people from the risk of abuse. They knew the different types and indicators of abuse and procedures for reporting safeguarding concerns internally and externally. Allegations of abuse were promptly referred onto the appropriate agency and a detailed record of them was maintained, including actions taken.

The provider worked with people to understand risks but did not always manage risk through consistent monitoring. For example, risk assessments were completed and measures put in place to minimise areas of risk identified. However, risk management plans were not always followed. Risk monitoring records for some people did not evidence they had received the care and support they needed to mitigate potential risks. This included records for people at risk of skin breakdown and malnutrition and dehydration. We discussed this with managers and have since been assured this has been actioned.

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, there was an up-to-date fire risk assessment for the premises and records evidenced regular safety checks of the environment, equipment and utilities. There were certificates confirming safety checks were carried out by registered engineers including, gas, electricity, fire systems, passenger lift and moving and handling equipment. The entrance to the home was secured and all visitors were required to sign in with their details on entering and leaving. The provider used technology to gather and analyse information about people’s safety.

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, observations and discussions with staff evidenced enough of the right staff on shift in each area of the home. Staff told us they felt there were always enough staff. Records showed staff were safely recruited and received the training and support they needed for their role.

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. For example, all staff had completed infection prevention and control (IPC) training and had access to guidance informing them about safe IPC practices. Staff understood their responsibilities for ensuring safe IPC practices. The environment smelt pleasant and was clean and hygienic throughout. There was a good stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) located across the home and staff were observed using and disposing of it safely. Regular IPC audits were completed for all areas, and they showed any shortfalls identified were addressed quickly to minimise the risk of the spread of infection.

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. For example, systems were in place to ensure regular medicines were given safely and at the right time. On people’s medication administration records, allergies were recorded accurately. Medicines were stored safely across the service, including controlled drugs. People who had thickening powder added to drinks because of swallowing difficulties were administered this safely and records were completed accurately. We saw good practice systems in place for the safe management of medicines patches. Correct processes were followed for people who were having their medicines given covertly, hidden in food or drink. Medicines audits were completed at regular intervals to identify issues and drive improvement. Medicines incidents were recorded, analysed and learnt from. Managers told us that staff had completed medicines training and had been assessed to ensure that they gave medicines safely. We were shown evidence of training records to confirm this.