Scorton Care Village

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 72 (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 investigated incidents and used lessons learned to improve practice. Monthly accident and incident analysis reviewed trends in falls, distressful behaviours, clinical incidents, and accidents, with outcomes used to identify patterns and actions to reduce future risk. Records showed lessons learned were discussed during staff meetings, alongside notifications and defensible record keeping, helping staff understand how improvements could be embedded into practice. Staff understood the importance of learning from events and raising concerns. One registered nurse told us they were “confident concerns would be investigated and feedback provided to support reflective learning.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. Electronic care records provided staff with up-to-date information about people's needs, risks, and preferences, which supported continuity of care. Care plans evidenced involvement from a range of health and social care professionals, including GPs, speech and language therapists and community mental health teams. A health professional told us communication with nursing staff was “good” and concerns were “responded to promptly.” Staff also described positive working relationships with external professionals, enabling timely referrals and coordinated support when people's needs changed.

The provider worked with people and partner agencies to understand and promote people's safety. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to recognise and report concerns. Documentation evidenced safeguarding concerns were appropriately referred to the local authority and monitored through a safeguarding tracker, which provided oversight of investigations, outcomes and actions taken. Staff were confident concerns would be acted upon. One registered nurse told us they understood safeguarding procedures and were confident any concerns about people's welfare would be investigated appropriately.
We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were managed. Records showed applications had been submitted where people were potentially deprived of their liberty. Systems were in place to protect people from avoidable harm while maintaining their rights and freedoms. We found no evidence of unnecessary or inappropriate restrictive practices. Measures such as door keypads and sensor mats were used in response to people’s assessed risks and helped keep people safe. People consistently described feeling safe living at the service. One person said, "People make me feel safe, knowing that somebody is here, someone to talk to."
 

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks while promoting their independence. Individual risk assessments provided clear guidance for staff on how to safely support people with areas such as mobility, nutrition, choking risks, distressful behaviours and accessing the community. Records showed assessments were regularly reviewed and updated as people's needs changed. Staff were able to explain the risks relevant to the people they supported and the measures in place to reduce the risk of harm whilst maintaining independence. Care plans promoted positive risk-taking, including supporting people to maintain activities important to them. For example, one person's care records recognised their enjoyment of walking and included guidance to help staff balance their independence with measures to keep them safe.

The provider did not always identify and control risks within the care environment. Whilst the home environments were clean, tidy, and well maintained, we identified some areas requiring further attention to ensure people remained safe and protected from avoidable harm. These included flooring presenting potential trip hazards and communal shower facilities that would benefit from improved cleaning and replacement equipment to further support infection prevention and control measures.

The provider had systems in place to monitor environmental safety, including regular environmental, health and safety, fire safety and infection prevention and control audits. A planned maintenance programme was also in place to monitor equipment, premises, and safety systems. However, these processes had not always ensured identified issues were acted upon in a timely manner. Following feedback during the assessment, leaders took prompt action, including arranging replacement shower chairs and scheduling flooring repairs. This demonstrated a willingness to respond to concerns and improve the environment for people living at the service.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff to meet people's needs safely. Staffing levels were informed by regular dependency assessments and adjusted to reflect peoples changing needs, including the provision of one-to-one support where required. During our assessment, people received timely support from staff who understood their needs and how to provide safe care.
Staff received effective training, supervision, and support to carry out their roles. Training records showed staff were fully compliant with mandatory training and had access to additional training relevant to the people they supported, including dementia care, dysphagia, end of life care and mental capacity legislation. Staff spoke positively about the support available to them. A registered nurse told us training was regular and helped staff maintain the skills needed to support people with a range of complex needs.
 

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection and had systems in place to help prevent and control its spread. We found both care home buildings were clean and tidy, with daily cleaning schedules completed across communal areas, bedrooms, and facilities. Monthly infection prevention and control audits were completed and used to identify and monitor improvements.
Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment and followed safe infection prevention and control practices.
 

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were managed safely and met people's needs. We observed medicines being administered as prescribed, with electronic systems supporting accurate recording and oversight. Care records included person-centred guidance for medicines prescribed on an 'as required' basis and medicines management was regularly monitored through audit processes.
A visiting health professional told us they were “very happy with the home's medicines processes” and described the management of time-specific medicines as “well organised.” We identified some opportunities to further strengthen medicines governance, including reviewing storage arrangements for returned medicines and improving audit trails for some medicines-related records. The registered manager responded positively to this feedback.