Heathercroft

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 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 listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had developed a positive learning culture within the care home. People were encouraged and supported to raise safety concerns with managers and staff. Managers and staff understood the importance of reporting safety concerns. Systems were in place to support staff to report and record safety concerns and events when they arose. Any safety concerns or incidents that did occur were investigated and when lessons needed to be learnt this was used to continually improve staff practice. A team leader told us, “We are constantly trying to improve our practice at the home by learning from our mistakes which do occasionally happen here. We have an open, no-blame culture, which helps us all have honest conversations with one another about how to minimise the risk of similar things going wrong again in the future.”

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.

Managers gathered information about people’s individual needs and wishes, and risks to their safety, prior to moving into the care home. This information was used to develop person-centred care and risk management plans which were shared with staff to help them provide safe and appropriate care to people from the moment they started living in the care home. Managers and staff worked closely with all the relevant family members where applicable and external health and social care professionals and bodies to ensure care plans and risk assessments reflected people’s current needs and wishes.

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 told us the care home was a safe place for their relative to live. One relative said, “My [family member] is supported by staff working at the care home who know what they are doing and how to keep him safe.” Managers and staff understood how to safeguard people. They knew how to recognise and report abuse and were able to articulate how they would spot signs if people were at risk of abuse or harm. A staff member told us, “I would tell the managers or the senior in-charge on the day if I saw anyone who lived here being abused. I’m confident they would then report it to the local authority’s safeguarding team and the CQC, as well as the police, if necessary, straight away.” Managers worked proactively with the relevant agencies, when a concern was raised, and took appropriate action to safeguard people from further risk, when this was required. An external care professional told us, “We have no safeguarding concerns about this service.”

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive people of their liberty where this was deemed necessary to ensure their safety. Staff understood people’s capacity to make decisions about their care and support using people’s preferred method of communication. Managers and staff had received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure risks people might face were routinely assessed, monitored and reviewed. People’s care records contained sufficiently detailed information for staff to follow to ensure risks people might face were mitigated, so people remained safe when taking part in activities of daily life. Managers and staff were fully aware of the potential risks people might face and the steps they needed to take to reduce or safely manage them. Staff described how they balanced risk with independence, enabling people to undertake tasks for themselves whilst remaining safe, such as travelling on public transport and riding a bike.People had positive behaviour support [PBS] plans in place which ensured staff had access to all the relevant information and guidance they needed to prevent or appropriately manage incidents if people became distressed. We observed several instances of staff professionally follow a person’s personalised PBS risk management plan to quickly deescalate potential hazardous incidents. Risk assessments and management plans were reviewed at regular intervals and updated according to reflect any changes in people’s needs.

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.

Uncovered portable radiators were being temporarily used at night in a communal area by staff, which had placed people at risk of harm. The provider responded immediately during the assessment by risk assessing the use of these portable radiators and deciding to have them all removed from the care home by the time of our second on site visit. Staff were also reminded not to use these types of radiators in future. Parts of the care home had been redecorated recently. Relatives felt it was a comfortable place for their family members to live. The environment was free from unnecessary slip or trip hazards which enabled people to move freely and safely around the care home. Safety systems and equipment people needed was in place and serviced at regular intervals to support the safe delivery of care. Staff had clear guidelines available to help them deal with emergencies.

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.

The provider employed enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff which ensured people received their care and support from staff who were familiar with their individual needs, preferences and daily routines. Staffing levels matched the duty rota for the day of our onsite visits. We observed managers and staff were always responded promptly and calmly to people’s requests for support and incidents where people might become distressed.

Staff received the right mix of e-learning and in-person practical and theoretical training and competency-based assessments which were being routinely refreshed and updated. A staff member told us, “The training we have is always useful and is constantly being refreshed. It certainly helps me in my work looking after the people living here and keeping them safe.”

Staff had ongoing opportunities to reflect on their working practices and to identify any further training, learning or support they might need. Staff had regular individual and group meetings with their line managers and co-workers.

The provider operated safe recruitment practices and only suitable staff were employed to work at the care home.

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.

People lived in a clean, hygienic environment. Staff had received food hygiene and infection control training and knew how to prevent infections spreading. They had access to resources and equipment to help them reduce infection risks, which included adequate supplies of personal protective equipment [PPE].

The provider made sure medicines were safe, well-managed and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They always involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The provider worked closely with a range of external health and medical care professionals to review ‘as required’ behavioural modification medicines people had been prescribed and had successfully discontinued there use in line with the principles of STOMP (Stop The Over-Medication of People with a learning disability). STOMP is a recognised best medicine practice program approved by the NHS. The services medicines systems were well-organised and safely managed. Medicines stocks, balances and records showed people consistently received their medicines as prescribed. Care records contained detailed guidance for staff about how people needed and preferred their prescribed medicines to be administered. Sufficiently detailed risk assessments and protocols for the administration of prescribed medicines were in place to guide staff. Staff had received medicines training and their competency to continue managing medicines safely was routinely assessed by their line managers. There were regular internal audits of the care home’s medicines practices, so any medicines errors would be identified and managed quickly.