High Trees Residential 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 69 (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 we spoke with knew how to report incidents. Management would then review them to identify lessons learned and implement measures to prevent a recurrence. Staff told us they were informed of any changes to a person’s needs or the way they were supported because of these reviews.

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 home carried out initial assessments of people moving to the service to identify whether they could meet the needs of the individual. This included collecting information from the person, their family or friends and health professionals.

People’s needs were monitored and where people were identified as requiring additional support, timely referrals were made to professionals.

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 we spoke with were knowledgeable about recognising signs of abuse and what action to take if they had concerns.

The home had policies and procedures in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse. Information was displayed around the buildings about how to respond to concerns of abuse.

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.

Care plans showed people and their families were consulted where possible to make decisions about how they wished to be kept safe. One relative told us, “We always feel included in any decisions regarding [relatives name] safety and know that they will have been consulted too.”

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Not all aspects of safety at the home were appropriately managed. We found a staff toilet was accessible to people and contained products which could be harmful to heath if consumed.

People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) to assist evacuation of them in the event of an emergency. We found information which could affect the evacuation was recorded in other documents but had not been included in their PEEPs.

We shared this information with the management team who took immediate actions to address these.

We found equipment used by people was serviced in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.

Equipment used for fire safety was serviced and checked appropriately. Electrical circuits and equipment were tested within the recommended frequency.

Staff carried out regular checks on hot water outlets to reduce the risk of scalds and hot surfaces were covered to prevent the risk of burns.

The provider did not always ensure that staff were recruited safely.

We checked employment records and found the provider was only requesting 10 years of employment history from new applicants, rather than the full employment history as required by law. When we shared this with management, they took immediate action to amend the application form.

Training records showed staff received comprehensive training including specialist training to meet people’s needs. However, staff had not been provided with face-to-face training for the manual handling of people. This meant their competency in embedding learning into practice had not been assessed and they had not been practically trained to use equipment at the home to assist people to move. This placed people at an increased risk of harm through poor manual handling techniques. When we shared this with management, they confirmed they would arrange for this training to be delivered immediately.

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.

Staff were trained in relation to infection, prevention, and control. We observed staff wearing Personal Protective Equipment appropriately.

Systems were in place to promote safe infection, prevention and control. The provider had appointed an Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) lead, who carried out regular audits.

People were receiving the right support from staff with maintaining their personal hygiene and the home was kept clean and well maintained when any issues arose. This meant people were protected from infection and disease.

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.

When we reviewed medicines administration records, there were no gaps, and medicines were administered as they were prescribed.

Staff had completed medicines administration training and were assessed as competent before being authorised to administer medicines.

As required protocols were clear, accessible, and consistently followed, ensuring people received medicines safely when needed. Medicines were also reviewed regularly by health professionals to ensure they remained appropriate and effective.