Primrose Neurological Centre

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 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. For example, audits supported learning. They identified if changes were needed to help ensure the safe management of medicines and accuracy of care records. Additionally, when lessons were learned from the providers other registered services, these were shared to help drive improvement at Primrose Neurological Centre.

Accident and incident forms were completed and reviewed to identify any themes or trends. Staff we spoke with knew how to report individual accidents and incidents and why this should be done. Staff told us if changes were needed to people’s care to promote safety and manage risk, this was shared through handovers and discussions.

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.

Prior to people moving into the service, a pre-admission assessment was carried out to ensure the service could meet people’s needs. Documentation and observations showed if people needed support from a health professional, this was arranged.

Information was provided to health professionals to inform clinical decision making. For example, if a person needed to go to hospital in an emergency, written information was provided. This helped communicate essential information to staff who may be unfamiliar with the person’s needs.

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 raised concerns to the appropriate authorities and completed investigations when these were required. During the assessment a person who used the service wrote to us to share their views. They told us, “I am safe.” A relative we spoke with said, “There’s no concerns from our perspective.” Staff were able to confidently explain the reasons they may make a safeguarding referral to the safeguarding authority and how they would do this.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were submitted appropriately. Mental capacity assessments were carried out and best interest meetings and discussions were documented. This helped ensure any restrictions were lawful.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage the individual risks they faced 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.

Risk assessments identified if people were at risk of falls, malnutrition and skin damage. These were reviewed when required and risk controls were in place if needed. For example, we saw one person’s mobility was increasing and a falls risk assessment had been completed to assess associated risks. This minimised the risk of avoidable harm and supported the person’s independence and safety.

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

Equipment was serviced to help ensure it was safe to use. For example, regular checks were carried out on beds, water temperatures and window restrictors.

There was a fire risk assessment to help manage the risk of fire and people had individual Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPS). This helped ensure staff knew the support people needed if they needed to evacuate the service in an emergency.

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 followed recruitment procedures to ensure all required checks were completed before staff started work at the service. Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. DBS checks provide information about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

People were supported by sufficient staff who were known to them and could meet their needs. There was a detailed induction to enable staff to learn about people’s needs and preferences and staff had regular meetings and training to support their development. People were supported quickly when they needed support or had a chosen activity planned. People were not rushed and staff were patient with people as they expressed their views.

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 were supported in an environment that was visibly clean. Cleaning schedules were available to ensure cleaning was consistently carried out and checks on the cleanliness of the service took place.

The service had been awarded a Food Standards Hygiene Rating of 5 by the Food Standards Agency. This meant the hygiene ratings had been rated ‘Very good.’

Staff had access to personal protective equipment, and we observed staff using this appropriately.

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. Medicines were stored securely and only accessible to authorised people. Staff administered medicines in a person-centred way and had completed training and checks on their competency. This helped ensure medicines were managed safely and provided to people in a way that met their needs and preferences.

The provider had a range of policies and procedures to guide staff on safe medicines management. These were accessible to staff and followed in practice.