Geraint House Residential Care Home

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider did not consistently take timely action in response to known risks identified through its own risk assessment and monitoring processes. Further detail regarding these concerns is outlined under the Safe Environments quality statement. Although environmental improvements had been made and further improvements planned for. Similar concerns had been identified at the providers last 3 assessments.

Safety incidents were appropriately investigated and reported. Staff had training about accidents and incidents and understood their responsibilities. A staff member told us, “I would report the incident straight away to the senior on duty or the manager. After that, I would complete an incident/accident form, recording clear details of what happened, including the time, date, who was involved, and the action taken. In line with Duty of Candour, families would be informed honestly and openly where required. The incident policy is kept in the manager’s office.”

Post incident reviews were carried out and changes made to reduce further risk. For example, in response to a person’s mobility needs increasing, changes were made to their care and support in order to reduce the risk of falls. A staff member said, “We look at possible causes, review the care plan, and check things like mobility, footwear, and medication to reduce the risk of it happening again.”

Learning from other providers and the wider sector was considered. The acting manager described how processes had been strengthened following an incident at another service where a person went missing. This was used as a learning opportunity to improve safety for people.

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.

People were referred to different services such as healthcare services appropriately. The provider and staff followed any guidance provided to ensure continuity of care and support.

People had their needs assessed before moving in to ensure their needs could be met and an appropriate plan of care developed.

Hospital passports were in place for the event of people requiring hospital admission. This supported the sharing of important information and was available for use in an emergency or routine admission. Staff accompanied people to hospital appointment to support effective communication sharing. Staff consulted people about the level of support they wanted during hospital appointments.

The provider gave examples of how they had supported a person transitioning to another service following an increase in needs which the provider could no longer meet.

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 they felt safe and knew how to raise any concerns they may have. One person said, “I would speak to with the manager of the home if I wasn’t happy with anything.”

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the provider’s safeguarding policy. They had access to the policy and to important information such as key contact numbers. They had confidence any concerns would be listened to and action taken in the event of suspected safeguarding concerns. Staff knew how to recognise the signs of abuse, how and who to contact if this was suspected including contacting external agencies such as the local authority or the CQC. All staff had up to date training about safeguarding people from abuse.

A staff member told us, “The full safeguarding policy is kept in the manager’s office, which is accessible to all staff. A summary, including key contact numbers, is also displayed on the staff notice board so it can be accessed quickly whenever needed.”

Where staff supported people to manage their finances, systems and processes were in place to reduce any risk of financial abuse. People had care plans and risk assessments in place. Records were maintained of all financial transactions, and these were audited. Further strengthening of these processes were discussed, such as moving larger amounts of money to a separate account so staff could only access smaller amounts of money required for day-to-day spending to reduce risks. The provider agreed to consult with people to explore this option.

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.

Risks relating to people were assessed and managed appropriately. People had individual risk assessments and where risk was identified, management plans were in place. For example, risks due to physical and mental health needs such as vulnerability from others, self-harm or self-neglect, mobility and pressure sores were assessed. Care plans were in place where this was required so staff knew what to do to reduce these risks.

At the time of this assessment, the provider was not using malnutrition risk assessments. A new electronic care records system was being introduced which included a malnutrition assessment.

There was a balanced and proportionate approach to risk that supported people and respected the choices they made about their care.People were encouraged to take carefully managed risks in order to live fulfilling lives.

The provider told us risks were discussed with people during key worker meetings and care plan reviews.

Staff had training about managing distress which may cause a risk to the person or other people. They described how they managed this in a person-centred way and in the least restrictive way.

The provider did not always control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Premises maintenance concerns had been identified at our last two assessments for this service. At our last assessment we identified a lack of effective systems and oversight for environmental repairs and maintenance. At this assessment we found the provider had made these required improvements and repairs identified and had oversight of further repairs and improvements required. However, these more recent concerns had not been actioned in a timely manner. Some areas of the premises required further repair and/or redecoration. There was ripped wallpaper in the reception and first floor landing, some paintwork on doors and skirting boards required scratched or flaking and in need of repair. The flooring at the bottom of the main stairs on the ground floor was stained.

Other areas of the premises such as the first-floor bathroom and shower room were not decorated in a homely way. The provider told us this would be addressed within their refurbishment plan. One person told us, “The home could do with being redecorated downstairs and my personal room.” The provider had a refurbishment and maintenance plan with timescales for completion. This plan included redecoration of the entire service.

The provider’s fire risk assessment carried out in July 2025 identified a number of deficiencies requiring action to ensure fire safety in the premises. The provider was in the process of taking this action including fitting 40 new fire doors. Other outstanding action included adding fire rated compartmentation to the basement ceiling and the first-floor stairway. Leicestershire Fire and Rescue service asked the provider to implement interim fire safety measures in order to continue to use the premises. The provider installed additional fire detection systems. Leicestershire Fire and Rescue assessed the service as broadly compliant following this additional action.

Records were maintained of fire safety checks and fire drills. These were carried out as appropriate intervals and included fire alarm, emergency lighting and firefighting equipment checks. Fire drills included people who used the service and the time taken for everyone to get to the allocated assembly point was recorded.

Each person had a personal evacuation plan so staff knew what support people would need in the event of an emergency.

Staff had training about fire safety and practiced evacuation drills every month. They were able to describe the action they would take in the event of a fire. A staff member told us, “I completed full fire safety training when I started. I know how to raise the alarm, where the fire exits and assembly points are, how to use extinguishers safely, and how to evacuate residents safely, including those who may need extra support.” Debriefs took place after each fire drill to review how it went and identify any improvements.

The main stairs from the ground floor were very steep and there was no lift at the premises. One person identified as at risk of tripping was advised to use the back stairs which were less steep. There was no risk assessment in place to ensure the steep stair risk had been assessed and managed. However, individual risk assessments were in place. The provider told us the service could not accommodate anyone who could not use the stairs independently. If people’s mobility needs increased, they would be referred for reassessment to find an alternative care setting to meet these needs.

There were no covers on radiators. The Health and Safety Executive guidance for managing the risks from hot water and surfaces in health and social care requires providers to assess potential scalding and burning risks in the context of the vulnerability of those being cared for. There was a risk assessment in place which managed this risk through ongoing surface temperature checks and individual mobility assessments.

A health and safety risk assessment had been carried out by an external specialist in August 2025. The local authority carried out a health and safety risk assessment in January 2026 and found the service to be compliant.

There was an outside smoking area located in an alleyway at the side of the building. However, there was no seating area. Several people using the service did smoke and would benefit from a more comfortable smoking shelter with seating. There was not enough garden furniture to allow people to enjoy the large garden in comfort.

The provider carried out hot water testing and maintenance to ensure hot water was delivered at safe temperatures. A risk assessment and testing had been carried out for legionella bacteria.

A gas safety and electrical wiring safety certificate was in place, and portable appliances had been tested and passed as safe. Window restrictors were in place for all above ground floor windows.

Staff had received health and safety training.

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.

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. One person said,

“I do feel there is enough staff around at all times.” Another person said, “I feel the staff are busy but do find time to support me.”

There were appropriate staffing levels and skill mix to make sure people received consistently safe, good quality care that meets their needs. People experienced continuity of care by being supported by a regular staff team. The providers staffing rota showed planned staffing numbers were fulfilled. There was no use of agency staff at the time of our assessment. While the provider did not use a staffing tool to calculate the number of staff required, the service was small and had enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Additional staff were brought in, in the event of any increase in people’s needs.

Staff had the right qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience to deliver safe and effective care. The providers training matrix showed all staff were up to date with their required training.

Staff told us they had time to spend with people and could meet their needs. They said they had access to training and had confidence carrying out their roles. Staff had supervision with their line manager every 4 months. They told us they found this a supportive process.

There were robust and safe recruitment practices to make sure that all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role.All required pre-employment checks were caried out including right to work and criminal record checks

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 told us they were satisfied with the cleanliness of the premises. One person said, “The home is kept clean I was told that we would be having new furniture in the day room and I am looking forward to this.”

At our last assessment, concerns about cleanliness and a lack of oversight for effective infection prevention and control (IPC) were identified. At this assessment the provider had made improvements. Kitchen units had been replaced or repaired. Chipped tiles, peeling plaster, silicone seals and grout had been repaired.

The provider had achieved a 5-star rating food hygiene rating from the local authority in March 2025. This meant food hygiene standards were very good.

The provider did not employ separate cleaning staff. Care staff also had cleaning and catering responsibilities, and these were allocated to staff members daily. There was a cleaning schedule for staff to follow, and daily walk arounds were carried out to check IPC standards. Monthly IPC audits were also carried out.

Staff had access to personal protective equipment such and gloves and aprons and used these appropriately. Hand washing facilities and hand sanitizer was available for people, staff and visitors. The provider had an IPC policy. Staff had training including the use of PPE and effective hand washing.

Staff knew what action to take in the event of an infectious illness to prevent the spread of infection. They knew not to come to work if they had any potentially infectious illness.

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.

People told us they received their prescribed medicines in the way they preferred and at the right time. One person said, “They provide good support; the home support me with my appointments.” Another person told us about the medicines they were prescribed, they knew why they were prescribed and said they had never had any issue with staff managing these. At the time of our assessment there was no one managing their own medicines, but staff told us this would be supported and risk assessed appropriately.

Medicine records we reviewed were accurate and up to date, 2 staff checked and signed for every medicine to reduce any risk of errors. Medicines were stored securely and in line with national guidelines. Medicine storage was well organised, clean and tidy. Ordering and returning systems in place ensured there was no overstocking.

Medicines prescribed on an as required basis had clear protocols in place so staff knew in what circumstances it should be given.

Some prescribed medicines had safety measures in place which required people to have blood tests and monitoring. Systems to ensure this was carried out were robust and closely followed by staff.

Staff had training about managing medicines and had their competency checked to ensure their practice was safe and in line with the providers policy. They described safe medicine management procedures and told us they felt confident in this role.