Sutton Lodge

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 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.

A lessons learned system and process had been introduced since our last visit which was a ‘lessons learnt’ record. This record had been completed after each accident or incident to review the event, identify any themes or patterns, and looked at ways to reduce the likelihood of recurrence or mitigate associated risks. Records evidenced that lessons learned had been shared with the staff team to improve practice and people's safety.

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.

Whilst no new people had started using the service since our last assessment, the provider had a detailed admissions policy in place. The registered manager told us, “We would review each new referral to see if we can meet their needs, if we can we would complete an initial assessment of the person’s needs before they moved in. This would involve the person and, where possible, their family.”

The provider had an electronic care planning system, which enabled information to be shared promptly with emergency services where required. Where people had been admitted to hospital and were ready for discharge, the registered manager had visited people and completed a reassessment to determine whether their needs had changed and whether any amendments to their care and support arrangements were required before their return. This helped ensure appropriate measures had been put in place to support a safe transition back to the service.

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 registered manager demonstrated they understood which incidents required to be reported to external agencies, such as local authority and the CQC. Staff had completed safeguarding training and, since our last assessment, additional support had been provided to ensure staff understood how to recognise safeguarding concerns and knew what action to take. This helped strengthen staff awareness of safeguarding responsibilities and reporting requirements.

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 staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen.

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.

People's care records included guidance on how to manage known risks. For example, where people were at risk of skin breakdown, guidance was in place to reduce this risk. Where healthcare professionals had provided guidance, care records contained relevant information, this included instructions on how to manage people’s individual risks of choking and dehydration. This meant staff had clear instructions on the actions required to prevent deterioration and promote positive outcomes.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for 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 that met people’s individual needs.

A developed staff calculation tool had been introduced to support the management to identify safe staffing levels. We observed sufficient deployment of staff to meet people’s needs. Staff had completed all required training, this included training to support people with individual health conditions to ensure they had the skills and knowledge needed to safely support people with these conditions.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

Medicines were managed safely and effectively. Medicines were stored securely, this included controlled drugs, which were kept in line with legal requirements. Staff administered medicines safely and on time and maintained accurate administration records. Staff had received appropriate medicines training, and their competency was regularly assessed to ensure safe practice and adherence to current guidance. Where people were prescribed medicines to be taken ‘as required’, guidance was in place to support safe and consistent administration.