Coton Grange

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.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The manager spoke positively about the changes that had been made since they had started working in the home. They told us they had recognised where improvements were needed and alongside an action plan they had implemented were working to making these changes.

They gave us an example of how incidents, accidents and safeguarding concerns were reviewed to ensure lessons were learnt. After an incident had occurred, the manager held a lessons learnt meeting with staff to discuss how things could have been done differently and how learning from this incident could be made to bring about improvements. This was all documented and the actions had been taken.

There were systems in place to ensure lessons were learnt to ensure good practice was continued and staff were aware and felt involved with this process.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

There were processes in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home. Where possible, the manager told us they would go out and meet with people and their families. They told us they reviewed information they held about the person before deciding if they could meet their needs and would complete their own assessment of the person’s needs. Each person was gifted with a welcome pack when they moved into the home, this included items such as flowers, toiletries or other gifts. Staff told us they were aware of people’s assessed needs and used this information to ensure they delivered safe care.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People felt safe. One person told us, “It’s just fabulous. I’m safe because they vet everyone who comes in here. The staff all work together which makes it so successful.” A relative said, “I’m assured he’s safe and that gives me peace of mind”.

There were systems in place to ensure safeguarding concerns were identified, reviewed and investigated. Staff told us they had received training and were able to tell us the action they would take if they were concerned.

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 when needed, DoLS were in place for people.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and relatives were happy with how their risks were managed. A person said, “I’ve got a frame which helps me to keep safe whilst I’m walking.” A relative told us, “We are happy with her care. She’s safe and fed. They keep her safe by having a crash mat next to her bed in case she falls out”.

There was a system in place to ensure people had care plans and risk assessments that had been developed individually, based on their assessed needs, which were regularly reviewed. Care plans and risk assessments were developed with people and those important to them.

These plans considered people’s levels of support, mobility needs and known risks such as pressure damage and health conditions such as Diabetes. These were reviewed regularly or when changes had occurred.

The provider did not always detect and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

We received mixed views on the environment. One person told us, “It’s a bit old fashioned, it needs modernising. I think it could be a bit cleaner too”. Whereas another person said, “My room is nice and clean”. A relative commented, “I have commented to them that it needs work doing, like painting everywhere”.

We saw areas of the home looked tired and in need of refurbishment. The manager told us they had identified this as part of their action plan and there were plans in place for the home to be redecorated.

There were processes in place to ensure any environmental risks were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

The provider had systems in place to ensure there were enough staff available to support people.

People and relatives confirmed there were enough staff to keep people safe. One person told us, “There’s always enough staff to help us if we need help. They come quickly in the night when I press my buzzer to go to the toilet.” A relative said, “There’s always a lot of staff, so I’m guessing there’s enough.” Staff raised no concerns with 1 confirming, “Yes there are always enough”.

We saw there were enough staff available for people, and they did not have to wait for support. There was an effective system in place to ensure there were enough staff available.

Staff told us and we reviewed the training matrix, which confirmed staff had received mandatory training and training that was specific to individual needs such as Diabetes awareness.

Staff had received the relevant pre-employment checks before they could start working with people to ensure they were safe to do so.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

We saw the home was generally clean and people were protected from the risk of cross infection. Staff told us they had received training and there was enough Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) available for them to use. There were processes in place to ensure concerns with IPC were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People were happy with how they received their medicines. One person said, “I have 5 tablets a day. I don’t have to worry about them. I always get them every day. I’ve got every faith in them. I don’t even think about that. If I’ve got a headache I just tell them and I get a Paracetamol.” A relative told us, “They give her medicine, although she has refused it in the past. I’m not aware of any current issues with regards to that. They are doing their very best.”

Staff administering medicines had received training and their competency was checked to ensure they were safe to administer these to people. We saw medicines were stored safely and administered as prescribed. When people had ‘as required’ medicines there was guidance in place for staff to follow.