Archived: The Borrins 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 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 service demonstrated an open and positive safety culture. Staff felt confident raising concerns, and incidents were reported and reviewed appropriately. Safety information was clearly displayed, and good practice was observed, including proactive support around mobility and falls. Evidence from staff interviews and documentation showed a consistent commitment to learning and improvement.

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.

Systems for assessing and managing risks were effective. Pre-admission assessments ensured staff understood each person’s needs, particularly around mobility and falls, and monthly reviews kept care plans current. Handover information was clear, and staff were able to describe processes confidently. Relatives reported smooth transitions and well-coordinated support. A relative told us: “Mum’s admission happened extremely quickly but right from the start the management and care staff have shown such responsive listening to mum’s needs, and indeed my own. They have continued to give her lots of time and understanding, I call it emotional intelligence.”

Another relative told us:” The transfer to their GP and pharmacy was handled very smoothly, whilst [relative] has kept to their existing chiropodist and dentist, everything simply fell into place. Staff recognised the upheaval of moving from home into the Borrins and supported [relative] so well through that. A care plan was written up, and we are happy that it covers very individual needs and requirements. Everything that was planned has happened.”

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.

Safeguarding processes were well understood, and incidents were reported consistently to partner agencies. People and relatives were informed of their rights, supported by accessible information in the residents’ handbook. External partners confirmed that the home operated safely and responsibly.

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 those who had DoLs in place, records were kept to best practice standards and conditions were being met.

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.

People were involved in managing risks that affected their daily lives. Staff encouraged mobility, supported people sensitively, and helped them maintain independence safely. While some relatives questioned the level of freedom offered, measures were in place to reduce falls risks.

A person living at the service told us: “I feel much safer than I did at home. I keep to staff advice to always use my walking frame, so I am keeping more mobile since being here.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental risks were monitored and well controlled. Equipment such as hoists and mobility aids was used correctly, personalised where appropriate, and well maintained. Communal areas were safe and clutter free, and equipment not in use was stored appropriately.

Call bells were responded to promptly and the environment was consistently clean and well maintained.

A person living at the service told us: “I get attention when I need it, no more than 4 or 5 minutes from pressing the buzzer. I feel much safer than I did at home. I keep to staff advice to always use my walking frame, so I am actually keeping more mobile since being here. Cleaning standards are excellent, so are the laundry arrangements.”

Feedback from people and families was very positive about staff; in terms of their skills, understanding of needs and wishes, proactive attitude and team spirit.

A relative told us: “We feel [our relative] is much safer for being in the home. Staff are readily available. It is very easy to visit; we are made welcome no matter the time. There are no problems getting staff to see you in and out, signing in is straightforward.”

A person living at the service told us: “I get attention when I need it.” Further comments from relatives included, “There seems to be always staff available when needed, weekends included. Going into the home, or leaving, rarely involves much waiting” and

“The manager clearly recruits the right people; the care and attention are brilliant.”

The provider made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received thorough support, supervision and strong development opportunities. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staffing records, rotas and the dependency tool indicated a history of safe staffing levels. Staff appeared busy but not overwhelmed, and this was evidenced by staff interviews conducted by telephone.

Staff were recruited safely and appropriate checks were carried out prior to employment. The recruitment process was robust focusing on individuals' strengths and development needs. This ensured effective recruitment of staff to support people appropriately.

Staffing levels were consistently safe, and staff were skilled, well supported and encouraged to develop. Observed practice showed good teamwork, respectful communication and competence. Training, supervision and appraisal records reflected a strong culture of professional growth. People and families reported high confidence in staff availability and capability.

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.

The home was visibly clean and odour free, with good hygiene practices in place. Staff used PPE appropriately, and infection risks were well managed. External agencies had raised no concerns, and relatives praised cleanliness despite the building’s older design.

A relative told us: “The environment is old-fashioned but kept up well, cleaning and laundry standards are very high and another relative said:” The environment could do with some updating but is spotless”

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.

Medicines were stored securely and appropriately, with effective stock management. Controlled drugs were well-maintained, with accurate‑ records and regular stock checks.
Medication administration records were in place and generally completed correctly.

Medicines were administered at appropriate times in line with people’s individual needs. Staff demonstrated a strong knowledge of people and provided appropriate support during administration.

All required staff had completed medicines administration training and competency assessments, including witnessed competency checks.
Monthly and quarterly medicine audits wereconsistent with the inspection findings, and action plans were in progress to make the necessary improvements to body mapping and recording of the use of creams.

The service demonstrated effective communication and collaboration with healthcare professionals and had arrangements for out-of‑hours support.