Dr Anderson Lodge

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 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.

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 provider reviewed and analysed accidents and incidents to mitigate further risks of harm. Lessons learned were shared with the team as part of continuous improvement and development of the service.

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. Information was shared appropriately to ensure people had smooth transitions when moving between services. The provider recorded and reviewed people’s pre-admission to post admission pathway as part of a reflective practice approach to continuous development and improvement of the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way this could be achieved. 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 safeguarding concerns quickly and incidents were reviewed and analysed appropriately. Staff had completed safeguarding adults training and they knew how to keep people safe and reports any concerns. Assessments of people’s capacity were undertaken for aspects of daily living which included a hoist being used for all transfers. The assessments of capacity were reviewed monthly and the least restrictive options were always considered. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). When people receive care and treatment in their own homes an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty. We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things which mattered to them. Risk assessments were completed appropriately and people were involved in developing their care plans. Care plans were detailed and well set out and care was delivered in line with people’s care plans. During the tour of the home, we found thickener for drinks was left on the tea trolley. Inspectors explained the risks and the registered managed asked staff to take immediate action and the product was removed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The care environment was well-maintained and safe. Checks and reviews of essential services including gas, electricity and water were completed regularly. The provider had an improvement plan which was monitored and reviewed by the registered manager. Current improvements included the bathrooms which were being updated to wet rooms and sink units being updated and replaced in people’s bedrooms.

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 which met people’s individual needs. There were sufficient members of staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet people's needs on duty. Members of staff told us they received appropriate training and were supported to carry out their role effectively. Staffing numbers were determined by reviewing people’s needs in a dependency tool and updated monthly. Members of staff were recruited safely. People who lived in the care home were involved in the recruitment process and their feedback was used to help the provider make decisions about successful candidates.

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. We carried out a tour of the home and checked on infection prevent and control practices. The care environment was clean and hygienic and personal protective equipment (PPE) was available for members of staff. We saw staff wearing PPE appropriately when providing care and support to people.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. When we reviewed how medication administered, we found it was generally safe and people received their medicines as prescribed. However, we identified some areas for improvement around how topical patches were applied and rotated. We highlighted this to the registered manager who took immediate action and reduced the risk of harm to people. An analysis of the areas for improvement was completed and the lessons learned were shared with members of staff responsible for medication administration.