Jesmund Nursing 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.

The provider’s systems enabled staff to raise and report safety concerns and events when needed. The registered manager reviewed and investigated these and made sure appropriate action was taken in response. They shared the learning from their investigations with staff to help them improve their working practices and keep people safe.

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 provider’s systems ensured people received safe and appropriate care as soon as they started using the service. Prior to moving in, assessments were undertaken with people and their representatives to identify their specific needs and risks to their safety. Information was also obtained from healthcare partners involved in people’s care, to help the provider obtain a detailed overview of people’s needs. This information was used to develop individualised care and risk management plans, which were shared with staff before they began providing care or support to people.

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 were given information about their rights and how the service would support them to stay safe. They told us they were safe at the service. A person said, “I’m very well looked after.” A relative told us, “[Family member] seems so much better since being here. It does feel safe.”

Staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding people and were confident raising and reporting concerns when needed. A staff member told us, “Safeguarding is preventing abuse and making sure people are safe from abuse. If I see something, I must report this to my manager. I would write down full details of what I saw. I feel confident managers would do something about it.”

Senior staff made timely safeguarding referrals when required and worked with the relevant partners to ensure people were safeguarded from further risk.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive people of their liberty where this was deemed necessary to ensure their safety.

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 spent their time as they wished at the service and were not subject to unnecessary restrictions. Staff were vigilant to people’s whereabouts and present and available in case people required their assistance.

Staff understood risks to people and followed their care and risk management plans to manage these. A relative told us, “They do know what they are doing. Manoeuvring people is all done well.”

Senior staff undertook regular reviews of people’s care and risk management plans to make sure staff had access to current information and guidance on how risk to people should be managed to keep them safe.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Safety systems and equipment were appropriately maintained and serviced in line with requirements to ensure they remained safe and fit for purpose.

Environmental risk assessments were in place to identify and mitigate potential hazards. These were regularly monitored and reviewed by senior staff to ensure they remained current, effective and reflective of people’s needs at the service.

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.

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. A relative said, “There are enough staff on duty. I’m here every day so you get a good idea about what is happening.” Another relative told us, “As far as I can see there are enough staff. You can always get hold of someone.” Senior staff reviewed staffing levels at regular intervals to make sure there were always enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Senior staff made sure staff completed relevant training to help them meet the range of people’s needs. They supported staff to continuously learn and improve in their roles through competency checks, supervision and appraisal of their work performance.

There were safe recruitment practices at the service. The provider carried out the necessary checks required on staff that applied to work at the service, to make sure they were suitable to support people.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of infection spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People lived in a clean, hygienic environment. A person told us, “The cleaning is all done well. Nothing like that is a problem.” A relative said, “They’re always cleaning. They never stop. I see them wearing the protective clothing. It never smells in here.”

Staff received relevant training to help them minimise the risk and spread of infection. They had access to resources and equipment to help them reduce infection risks and used this appropriately. A relative told us, “They do wear aprons and gloves when doing any personal care.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People were supported to take their medicines when they needed these. Medicines stock and records confirmed people consistently received the medicines prescribed to them. Senior staff undertook monthly audits and regularly assessed the competency of the registered nurses to check they were administering medicines safely.

Guidance in place to support staff in the administration of ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines did not consistently include information about how people might communicate or present when they required these medicines. At the time of this assessment, this did not pose an immediate risk, as people receiving PRN medicines were able to verbally express their need for this. Nevertheless, there was a potential risk that, should people’s communication needs change, staff may not be able to recognise non-verbal indicators that PRN support was required. We discussed this with the provider who told us work was already underway to improve the quality of information and guidance for staff about when this support was required and would be completed by end of March 2026. We will check at our next assessment of the service that the provider took action to make this improvement.