Archived: 182 Bromham Road

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 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We identified and incident report was not available following a person who had recently experienced a fall and records in relation to epileptic activity had not always been well documented. This increased the risk of adverse events not being well managed and reviewed to maintain people’s safety. In response to our feedback the provider arranged for an incident form to be completed and improved their systems to document epileptic activity and assess staff competence in this area. However, relatives confirmed they were kept informed of any incidents and accidents. A relative said in relation to accidents such as falls, “we know and they rectify,” and “they keep us informed.”

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. Records evidenced people had been supported to access external health professionals appropriately and when needed.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and improper treatment. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. All relatives we spoke with felt people were safe.Staff had received safeguarding training and could tell us who they could report concerns to externally if needed.

We found people’s care plans and records did not always evidence all risks people could experience or needed support with such as their mobility, had been well assessed. In response to our feedback, the service improved and updated people’s care plans before the end of our assessment. Staff were knowledgeable about risks people could experience such as emotional distress and their mobility and could tell us how they supported people’s safety.

We identified some environmental risks. Window restrictors had not been fitted or risk assessed as not required. We observed rust on the kitchen fridge door and a handrail in a bathroom. In response to these concerns the provider made these areas safe before the end of our assessment and could evidence other environmental improvements that were scheduled. Overall, the environment was safe. The provider had recently invested in the service to ensure required actions from their fire risk assessment had been completed.

 

Staff were recruited safely. The service had carried out DBS checks, verified references and had systems in place to induct new staff. Staff told us they received regular supervisions that were supportive. Staff schedules showed enough staff were deployed. All relatives felt there were enough staff, and they were well trained.

The service managed the risk of infection effectively. Overall, the service was clean and free from malodour. We observed that there was enough PPE in place. A relative said the home “looks clean and tidy, no problems.”

The service ensured that medicines and were safe and tailored to individuals' needs and preferences. Staff had been trained and assessed as competent to support people to receive their medicines. There were effective systems in place to regularly audit medicines.