Marian House 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.

The last rating for this key question was 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 systems for staff to learn when things went wrong. The registered manager investigated incidents, accidents and complaints. Following these investigations, the registered manager created and monitored action plans which outlined where improvements were needed. Staff confirmed these were discussed in team meetings. Staff also explained they alerted the registered manager when they identified areas of concern. For example, a staff member told us, “We noticed 1 person was falling quite a bit. We had a discussion and formed a plan to better monitor them.”

The provider supported people to have safe transitions between services. The registered manager assessed people’s needs before they moved to the service. They liaised with other professionals to make sure these needs could be met. Staff shared information with external professionals, including the ambulance service and hospitals, when people needed to access these. This ensured all of those involved in people’s care knew and understood their needs.

The provider had systems to help safeguard people from abuse. Staff undertook training in safeguarding procedures. Staff were able to explain how they would recognise and report abuse. People using the service told us they felt safe. People explained they were happy to speak up if they had concerns. The provider worked with the local safeguarding authority and other organisations to investigate, respond to and learn from allegations of abuse. They took appropriate action to help protect people from further harm.

The provider requested legal authorisations where restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for people who did not have the capacity to consent to these. Decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests and for their safety.

The provider assessed, planned for and monitored risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. People were asked for their views and able to take risks. For example, some people went into the local community independently. Staff helped them plan how to do this safely and what they should do if something went wrong.

Risk assessments were incorporated into care plans and included guidance from external professionals when needed. Risk assessments and plans were regularly reviewed and updated.

The registered manager explained staff had undertaken work to reduce falls at the home. Some staff were dedicated falls ‘champions’. They undertook additional training and shared their learning with other staff. All falls were investigated. People were referred for specialist support when needed. Staff completed training to understand how to support people to move safely.

The environment was safe and well-maintained. People were able to personalise their rooms. There were different communal areas where people could relax or socialise. Corridors were wide, well-lit and equipped with handrails. There were kitchens which people could use to prepare their own snacks and drinks. There was also a chapel where people attended Mass.

The provider completed regular checks on the safety of the environment and equipment. A person explained, “The maintenance man is amazing. Nothing is too much bother for him. He mends things as soon as possible and keeps the home looking lovely.”

The provider employed enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. People told us staff were attentive, and they did not have to wait for care. Staff told us there were enough of them. Their comments included, “We are not rushed” and “We work as a team and help each other.”

There were suitable systems for staff recruitment. The provider carried out a range of checks on staff. New staff completed inductions and undertook a range of training. The registered manager assessed staff competencies and skills. Staff completed regular training and took part in meetings with their manager to discuss their work.

Whilst the service was clean, the practice of using fabric handtowels in communal bathrooms and toilets was not in line with best practice. This is because the use of these towels by multiple people could increase the spread of infection. We discussed this with the registered manager so they could look at alternative arrangements.

There were clear schedules for cleaning and regular audits of cleanliness and infection prevention and control.

The laundry was well managed, and people told us they were happy with this service. The kitchen staff had good systems to help manage cleanliness and carry out checks on food safety.

Staff were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons to use when needed.

People told us they were happy with the standard of cleanliness.

The provider supported people to take their medicines safely and as prescribed. People told us they were happy with the support they received with medicines. People received their medicines on time. Staff recorded information about how people preferred to take medicines and any special requirements they had.

Staff liaised with doctors to make sure medicines were regularly reviewed.

People were able to manage their own medicines if they wanted. This was assessed to make sure they could do this safely. Staff who supported people with medicines undertook relevant training. The registered manager assessed their skills and competencies.

Medicines were stored securely and appropriately.

Staff kept clear and accurate records relating to medicines. There were regular audits of records and storage. Medicines errors and incidents were investigated, and staff took appropriate action to address and learn from these.

Some people were given medicines covertly (without their knowledge). This had been assessed. The decisions to do this were made in people’s best interests by a multidisciplinary team of professionals and people’s representatives.