Lincroft Meadow Care 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.

Where incidents and accidents occurred, the registered manager carried out thorough investigations, identified any themes or trends, and implemented actions to reduce risks. For example, the number, location, and timing of falls were regularly reviewed to identify patterns and take preventative measures.

Staff told us they felt confident reporting incidents and accidents and confirmed these were investigated appropriately. Learning from incidents was communicated through handovers, staff meetings, and group supervisions. Relatives told us they were informed promptly if an incident, such as a fall, had occurred.

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 service was in contact with multiple professionals including the care home support team to ensure people received the required care. (The care home support team are a group of healthcare professionals (nurses, therapists, etc.) who work with care home staff to improve resident care.) Relatives told us they were kept up to date with people’s referrals and appointments. Prior to people arriving at the service, the management team conducted assessments to ensure they were able to meet the needs of the person and support a smooth transition to the service. The registered manager explained how they worked together with professionals and others, through a collaborative, joined-up approach, to ensure safety and continuity of care was a priority throughout people’s care journey. For example, if the service was preparing for a potential admission, the service worked together with the person, their family, and professionals to gather and create plans of care so they could receive the care and support they needed.

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 and their relatives told us they were safe at Lincroft Meadow. One person told us “I feel quite safe because the carers are exceptional”.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the service’s safeguarding policy and procedures. Staff were able to explain different types of abuse and told us they would not hesitate to raise concerns to the registered manager, and to external parties if needed. All staff had received up to date safeguarding training. People and their representatives were involved in all aspects of their care. The staff and leaders had taken active steps to ensure there was an open culture. People told us they felt they could speak to the management team if they had any concerns and this was echoed by their relatives. There were systems, processes, and practices to make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. Records showed the registered manager and provider monitored events like falls and unexplained bruising, to ensure any patterns of concern were identified. People were only deprived of their liberty when there was appropriate legal authority in place. In care homes, this is managed through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We found that where individuals lacked capacity and were potentially deprived of liberty, both they and their representatives were fully involved in the (DoLS) process. The provider made timely and appropriate applications and ensured decisions were made in the person’s best interests. One person told us “I feel it is very safe here, good carers who look after you”.

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.

Risks were assessed with people, and mitigation measures were put in place wherever possible. Each person had risk assessments covering all key aspects of their care, which were regularly reviewed and updated promptly through an electronic care planning system.

The service encouraged positive risk-taking, supporting people to maintain independence, mobility, and community connections. This included opportunities for day trips arranged by the provider and going out independently. One person told us, “I can do what I want to. I go out independently on the bus—the ramp comes down, and I get on with my wheelchair and go to the bank and shops. I sign out and let them know where I am going. They always know where we are. I can choose what I want to do in the home, get up, go to bed when I want”.

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

Staff maintained a clean and safe home where facilities and equipment were consistently well-kept to enable safe and effective care. During our visit, we observed that the environment was clean, tidy, and well-maintained.

There were effective arrangements in place to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises and equipment, including food preparation and storage areas. This included regular cleaning audits and a responsive maintenance process to address issues promptly.

The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff to deliver safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff worked well together and received effective support, supervision, and opportunities for development.

Records confirmed that staff completed a structured induction and received regular supervision and appraisals to maintain performance and professional growth. Training was provided in key areas, including those specific to the needs of people living in the service, promoting safe and compassionate care practices. Staffing rotas were planned to maintain an appropriate mix of skills and experience on each shift, and a trained staff member was always available to administer medication. Observations showed staff had time to engage with individuals, respond promptly to requests, and provide attentive support.

People were supported by staff who had been safely recruited. Recruitment checks included criminal record screening, employment history verification, and references. Where nursing qualifications were required, checks ensured staff were registered and licensed to practice. Staff told us they had regular one-to-one meetings with their line manager and access to training to keep their skills and knowledge up to date.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection effectively, taking steps to detect and control the risk of it spreading. Concerns were shared promptly with the appropriate agencies when required. The home was clean, well maintained, and supported safe care. Staff confirmed they always had access to sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and had received training in infection prevention and control. Regular infection control and cleaning audits were carried out to monitor compliance and maintain high standards. We saw that the provider’s infection prevention and control policy was up to date and aligned with current guidance.

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. The provider had a medicines policy. Medicines were managed safely, and staff had received adequate training and medicines competencies were completed. We found medicines were stored safely and securely. Medication administration records (MAR) were fully completed, and refusals were appropriately recorded. We found ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines had the required protocols in place and the medicines were stored appropriately. There were systems and processes in place to audit and review medicine administration processes. The registered manager had ensured that appropriate mental capacity assessments were completed prior to any covert administration, in line with legal and best practice requirements. Staff were aware of protocols for reporting and managing medication errors.