Harry Priestley 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 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. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed. Lessons learned were identified and documented which supported a culture of learning in the service.

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. People had hospital passports in place which ensured continuity of care when people needed emergency care and support. People also had a hospital bag packed with essential items ready to be used when needed. Documentation in the hospital bags was regularly reviewed and updated.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way for this to be achieved. 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 safeguarding concerns quickly and appropriately. People were safe in Harry Priestley House. There were good systems and processes which ensured people were kept safe. A relative told us, “I do feel very happy [family member] is safe.” Another relative said, “[Family member] is, “Safe and very happy.” Members of staff had access to policies, procedures and appropriate training to keep people safe. One member of staff told us, “We keep people safe by ensuring we follow policies and procedures and by talking to people. Most people are able to tell us if they have any problems and, provided we follow their care plan and risk assessments, we can keep people as safe as possible. I feel confident [the registered manager] has an open-door policy and I feel confident if I had any personal issues or issues with a colleague providing care dangerously, [the registered manager] would listen and act upon this in a professional and confidential manner.”

We saw evidence the provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to review people’s capacity and understanding around receiving care and support. 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. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needswhichwas safe,supportiveand enabled people to do the thingswhichmattered to them.People’s care plans were person-centredand clearlyidentifiedtheir care needs,preferencesand routines. Risks associated with the provision of care and support wereassessed and mitigated. Observations confirmed care was delivered in line with care plans and people’s needs were met appropriately and safely.

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 provider made sure the care environment was safe. Essential checks on equipment and services were carried out in line with regulations and expected standards. This ensured people were 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 which met people’s individual needs. The management team ensured members of staff were recruited safely and pre-employment checks, including Disclosure and Barring Services (DBS) checks, were carried out. Members of staff were deployed effectively to meet people’s needs. A relative told us, “There’s constant staff to look after [family member]. There’s a lot of staff there.” Members of staff told us they received appropriate training and support. One member of staff said, “We have an in-house trainer who has trained me on moving and handling using hoists, slings and slide sheets. We have a training manager who has shown me how to use fire equipment, such as fire evacuation sheets. I have also had training from a 3rd party company who have shown me how to use an extinguisher and what each extinguisher is used for.”

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. The care environment was clean and well-maintained. There were no concerns with cleanliness or infection prevention and control. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available for members of staff to use. A member of staff told us, “I know where the PPE stations are and the protocols we use when any person is isolating due to illness. I have task specific PPE for my role during work at Harry Priestley House.”

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Medication administration was managed safely. The management team reviewed and audited the medication administration process to ensure it was safe. A relative told us, “Medication is kept in a locked box and administered by staff.”