BrendonCare Otterbourne Hill

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 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.

The management team demonstrated a proactive and positive safety culture grounded in openness and transparency. There was a culture where staff felt safe to raise concerns, which were addressed promptly, and any incidents were thoroughly investigated. Lessons learned from falls, pressure injuries, behaviours that challenge, and safeguarding events were embedded into practice. Duty of candour records confirmed timely communication with people and external professionals. Visiting health professionals reported confidence in the responsiveness of the service and learning culture.

The provider worked with people and community partners to maintain safe and consistent care systems. Reviews took place when needs changed, such as reduced mobility after illness or adjustments to medication routines. Staff updated care plans and risk assessments promptly, ensuring continuity during transitions, including return-home periods after hospital stays. Professionals viewed the approach as structured and dependable. One person said, “The doctor is here a lot and we get to see him if we need to”.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. People were protected from abuse, neglect, and avoidable harm. Staff remained alert to common risks such as confusion, isolation, or vulnerability to financial pressure. Safeguarding concerns were raised when people showed signs of unexplained bruising, withdrawal, or difficulty managing daily tasks. Professionals expressed confidence in safeguarding processes. One person said, “Yes, of course I feel safe here”.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Staff involved people in managing risks linked to mobility, medication, hydration, and personal care. Guidance was offered on safe use of walking aids, reducing falls risks, and maintaining safe routines. Professionals found the collaborative approach effective. One person said, “They [staff] speak to me about using my frame and about to risk of falling”.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Staff identified environmental risks such as clutter, poor lighting, or unsafe flooring and supported people to address these. Equipment was checked before use, and staff monitored skin hygiene for people with reduced mobility. Visiting professionals confirmed consistent adherence to safe practices.

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. Staffing levels met people’s needs, including support with mobility , and complex medication routines. Staff training in moving and handling, dementia, and medication safety supported competent care delivery. Professionals confirmed reliability and safety across visits. A member of staff said, “I love working here, there are enough staff and yes, I have received a good level of training”. The provider had effective recruitment procedures in place.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff followed PPE guidance, maintained hand hygiene, and cleaned equipment used by people with reduced immunity. Signs of infection, such as sudden confusion linked to urinary infections, were escalated promptly.

Medication was managed safely and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff prompted, assisted, or administered medicines when people struggled with memory, dexterity, or packaging. Medication Administration (MAR) charts were completed accurately, and any risks linked to missed doses were escalated.