Saintbridge House Nursing and 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 as 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.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of how to recognise, report and escalate safety concerns. There was an open culture within the home where staff felt confident to raise issues with senior staff and management, and leaders were responsive to concerns raised. A member of staff, told us, “We know how to raise concerns and we have an open culture here. We can approach seniors or management at any time. Everyone just wants the best for the people that live here.”

Effective systems were in place to record, review and learn from incidents. Significant events were analysed with clear reflection on what had happened, and lessons learned were shared with the staff team. Staff meeting minutes evidenced that incidents and outcomes were regularly discussed to promote continuous learning and improvement.

There was a clear management oversight of safety events, and the service used information to identify themes and embed improvements into practice.

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.

Referral processes were well organised, with individual records demonstrating timely and appropriate referrals to relevant professionals. Policies and procedures relating to referrals and transitions were in place and up to date.

Pre-admission processes were thorough, information was gathered from people, their relatives and healthcare professionals prior to admission to ensure the service could meet people’s needs safely. This proactive approach supported safe decision making and helped to ensure people transitioned smoothly into the service.

Communication systems, including daily handovers and communication books, supported the consistent sharing of information about people’s needs. Each person had an individual folder, detailing referrals and involvement from external health professionals, which helped ensure coordinated and responsive care. Professionals stated that the home had strong processes and documentation in place.

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.

The provider had effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding processes. Appropriate safeguarding training was in place to support staff to feel confident in their roles. Safeguarding concerns were taken seriously and acted upon promptly by the registered manager and senior staff.

Policies were in place relating to safeguarding and reflected current best practice. Documentation demonstrated a person-centred approach which promoted independence whilst ensuring risks were appropriately managed using the least restrictive options. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that the provider was proactively auditing and reviewing all records relating to authorised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), including timely referrals.

There was a positive and open culture where staff felt comfortable raising safeguarding concerns with senior staff or management. A staff member we spoke to at the home told us, “I feel comfortable and confident to raise a concern. I have never had to but feel confident that I would straight away if needed.”

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.

Staff were supported to understand and manage risks in a person centred way. Care plans evidenced that people had appropriate and up-to-date risk assessments in place, which clearly guided staff on how to support people safely while promoting independence and choice. Risks relating to areas such as falls, nutrition, mobility and health needs were clearly documented and reviewed and updated promptly when people’s needs changed.

Where people experienced distress or behaviours that may challenge, care plans provided clear guidance on preventative and responsive strategies. The service worked in line with least restrictive practice and there was evidence that people, and where appropriate their relatives, representatives and other professionals, were involved in their care planning and decision making.

Risk was managed proactively and proportionately, enabling people to remain as independent as possible while keeping them safe.

The provider had effective systems in place to detect, monitor and control risks within the environment. The premises were well maintained, clean and suitable for the needs of people living at the service.

Records evidenced up-to-date certification for health safety checks. Policies and procedures relating to health and safety were current and supported good practice. Equipment, including hoists and slings, were subject to appropriate servicing and inspection. Fire safety arrangements were robust, with systems in place for testing alarms, maintaining fire equipment and supporting safe evacuation where required.

The environment was observed to be safe, clean and well organised. The service demonstrated a well-managed approach to maintaining a safe environment.

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.

At the time of the assessment, we observed that there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were visible in communal areas, responded promptly to call bells and were able to support people in an unhurried way, which showed that staffing levels met people’s needs. Staffing levels and skill mix were regularly reviewed, and rotas demonstrated good continuity of care for people, with minimal reliance on agency staff.

Staff received appropriate induction, training and ongoing development to support them in their roles. Records showed regular supervision and appraisal arrangements were in place, providing staff with opportunities for support, reflection and professional development.

The provider carried out recruitment checks on prospective staff to help ensure they were suitable to work in a care setting. These included employment references, proof of identification, the right to work in the UK and criminal records checks.

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.

On the day of our assessment, the home was observed to be clean, fresh and well maintained. Cleaning schedules were in place and completed, demonstrating regular oversight of hygiene.

Staff had received appropriate Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) training and demonstrated good understanding of infection control practices. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was regularly available and used appropriately by staff, and hand hygiene facilities were accessible throughout the service.

Professionals who visit the home also commented on the cleanliness of the home and stated that handwashing facilities were accessible and external doors were appropriately secured to maintain safety.

There were clear policies and procedures in place to support safe practice, including arrangements for safe handling of laundry, waste and cleaning materials. The provider maintained appropriate oversight through audits and monitoring processes to ensure the home’s IPC standards remained high.

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 service has safe and effective systems in place for managing medicines. Medicines were ordered, received, stored and disposed of in line with current guidance. Storage was secure and appropriate checks were completed.

Staff who administered medicines were trained and had their competency assessed. Medicines administration records were appropriate completed and clear protocols were in place for ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines.