Champion House

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 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.

At our last assessment, we found that systems failed to identify and learn from accidents and incidents. We noted improvements at this assessment and saw that lessons learned were identified and shared via staff meetings, weekly operational bulletins, and quarterly newsletters.

Accidents, incidents, and falls were accurately reported and reviewed, with clear analysis of trends and themes and actions taken in a timely manner following each event.

Staff told us they could raise concerns. One staff member told us, “The manager ensures safety comes first. This is always raised in handovers meetings and supervisions. We can raise any concerns.” A relative told us, “Over the years I have had to raise some concerns, but they have always been dealt with to my satisfaction.”

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care.

At our last assessment, we found inadequate oversight during care transitions. At this assessment we saw improvements in referral records, any gaps in relation to this had been highlighted by the registered manager who had taken appropriate action. One person told us, “It went very smoothly,” and “The manager came to my house and assessed me prior to coming in. Everything went smoothly Another person told us, “I have not had my needs assessed since I have come in again.” We checked this on assessment to ensure their care needs were up to date.

People had access to health and social care professionals. We saw health professional visits in place to support people.

We saw “about me” documents, created with people and their families as well as life stories, preferences, likes, and wishes.

Information about people’s individual needs and risks they might face were in place in care plans. People and their representatives had been involved in these; however, People and their families were unsure of if they had been involved. One relative told us, “I have never been involved in a care review.” Another relative told us, “I don’t think I have ever had an invitation to one.” One person told us, “My care is right for me what I receive.”

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 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.

Records demonstrated people were cared for in the least restrictive way, adhering to and promoting the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were sought when needed and any conditions imposed by them were followed.

People told us they felt safe living at Champion House. Comments included, “The staff seem ok. I like to keep myself to myself,” and “I feel very safe living at the home. The staff are very helpful.” Another said, “The staff are generally very pleasant. I have not had a problem with anyone since I have arrived.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically.

At our last assessment, we found risk assessments were not person-centred or consistently effective. We noted improvements at this assessment and saw that risk assessments were person-centred and effective.

There were mixed responses from people in relation to staff supporting them to manage risks. One person told us, “Staff have always listened to me when I have told them when I can do things for myself. They don’t do anything for me that I can do for myself.” Another person told us, “This is an area that I feel is very strongly. The staff know what they are doing when it comes to supporting me with minimising risks to my safety. When I need the assistance of two people to help me with my physical needs it is always provided.” Another person told us, “Not aware of being risk assessed in any risk areas,” and “I haven’t seen any risk assessments that I am aware of, I don’t think.”

Risk assessments provided good guidance to staff on how to mitigate risks to people. These were continually reviewed and amendments made to care practices where change was required.

Positive behaviour support plans were in place to guide staff on how to support people through heightened levels of anxiety. These documents included what could be a trigger for people, how they would present if they were highly anxious, and distraction techniques staff could use to calm them.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Equipment used to support people was suitable, well maintained and stored securely.People’s bedrooms were personalised with photographs and items belonging to them. Maintenance and other safety checks were in place. For example, gas safety and equipment checks. People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place in their care records.

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.

Recruitment processes were safe, and staff had the skills required to carry out their roles. Records relating to references, Employment checks, inductions, and training were in place. Staff felt supported by the manager. They participated in training and regular supervision. A staff member told us, “We have a lot of training, and we get a lot of good knowledge from this. It is mostly online. We are told when we need to recap when it comes up to the time.” One relative told us, “There seems to be a lot of staff on when I visit.”

We did find some staff knowledge lacked in certain areas relating to Mental capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We discussed this with the manager at the time of assessment. The management team told us they would address this in supervisions and team meetings.

We saw improvements from a recent staff survey around staff moral. This showed positive improvements within the service.

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.

Staff we spoke with had no concerns about Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practices in the service. Processes were in place to ensure infection control risks were assessed and managed safely. Cleaning staff were operating around the home. We found the home was clean, hygienic, and good standards of cleanliness were maintained.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

At the last assessment we found concerns around medicine management. At this assessment we found some improvements across all areas, however further work needed implementing to embed improvements in this area.

Additional information about the administration of medicines prescribed on a when required basis were present in the form of when required protocols. The information, included in some of these plans was not sufficient to inform the staff of how and when it was appropriate to administer these medicines.

Medicine administration records (MARs) were being used to record the administration of medicines and showed people were given their medicines as prescribed. However, we did discover that one-time specific medicine was not being administered at the correct time intervals, which could reduce its effectiveness to treat the condition for which it was prescribed. No harm was caused to the person.

Controlled Drugs records recorded the receipt, administration and disposal of Controlled Drugs and were audited on a regular basis.

The maximum and minimum refrigerator temperature were being measured and recorded. The records were able to demonstrate medicines were being stored at between 2°C and 8°C.

Staff were trained and were assessed as competent to administer medicines safely.

Processes were in place for the timely ordering and supply of medicines. People’s allergies were accurately recorded.

An accurate record was made when medicines were not administered, for example, when medicines were refused.