Speedwell Court

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Following concerns raised anonymously about staff manual handling and dementia training, further refresher training had been scheduled. Staff we spoke with were clear about how to record incidents and accidents, and how to escalate any safety concerns.

The provider had a policy on the prevention and management of falls, which had recently been reviewed and updated to ensure it was consistent with current best practice. The registered manager had arranged dates to discuss the changes with staff.

Following recent whistle blowing incidents, the registered manager was in the process of sending out an anonymised staff survey inviting staff to provide feedback regarding whistle blowing issues, which was in addition to the national provider survey. The provider’s regional manager had also visited the home to speak with staff and review procedures.

A health professional told us communications between the service and their own agency had improved so there was now more joint working. They said they felt “There is a very open, honest relationship” and “Any concerns are talked about.” They told us they had plans to extend this working model to other care homes.

Complaints received by the service were taken seriously and responded to. Records were kept which showed details of the complaint, investigation and outcome. There was also a record of service level learning and actions arising from complaints and quality audits, with progress notes and completion dates.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, which ensured safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Pre-admission assessments were completed by senior staff, and we saw examples of these and other records including hospital discharge summaries.

Staff told us how they were made aware of people’s health and care needs, wants and wishes when moving into the service. Regular daily meetings including shift handovers were used to inform staff on duty about people’s specific needs, for example mobility, diet, social and medical history. When people left the home the discharge process included collaboration with any new provider or agency.

Records showed people were referred to other healthcare professionals when needed. Fortnightly meetings took place between senior staff and the community district nursing team manager to review people’s needs and any concerns. A health professional told us the service followed clinical advice and that they had no concerns about the home. They said they had regular meetings at the home that were very beneficial and that the service referred to them and to the GP promptly when they had concerns.

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.

There were appropriate policies in place to protect people from abuse and staff received training in safeguarding. Staff demonstrated their understanding of safeguarding issues and the procedures for reporting concerns. They expressed confidence in the management team responding appropriately to any concerns they raised. Records showed the registered manger had reported and investigated incidents appropriately and promptly when required.

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 had been assessed for risks such as skin damage, falls and choking. Risks had been regularly reviewed. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed monthly or sooner if required. There were also annual reviews which involved people’s families with consent. When risks were identified, care plans provided information for staff on how to reduce the risk of harm to people. We saw records of risk review actions emailed to staff to keep them updated, in addition to daily handovers.

Staff described how they would respond to people who were distressed and told us about the training and guidance they had. Training in breakaway techniques was taking place at the time of the inspection, which would help staff in keeping themselves and the people they support safe. Staff demonstrated knowledge and understanding of individual’s needs and how to manage situations that could potentially cause the person to become anxious. The service worked closely with community health services to make sure people received appropriate support.

The registered manager reported that over the past 12 months there had been a decrease in falls and in pressure injuries. This they felt was because of additional in-house training and guidance provided to staff as well as working closely with wider stakeholders on reducing these risk elements. For example, airflow mattresses, positioning cushions and other pressure relieving equipment were provided, prior to the development of wounds, to prevent skin breakdown.

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

Records of regular audits conducted by the provider showed potential risks were monitored, including the impact of new admissions on the care environment and vice versa. Staff safety was also monitored.

Maintenance staff told us about how they monitored the safety of the premises and carried out regular checks on equipment. They told us they received weekly bulletins to inform them of any changes to recommended safety requirements and checks. Staff were able to raise any concerns about the safety of the premises or equipment via the home’s computer system, or directly to maintenance.

Staff demonstrated their understanding of the fire safety procedures. There were weekly fire alarm tests, digitally recorded, and an unannounced fire drill took place every three months. New staff were introduced to the fire safety systems as part of their induction 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.

Staff were recruited safely and had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Staff had received training in a broad range of topics including specific training to enable them to meet people’s individual needs and ensure people received safe care.

We received some mixed feedback about staffing levels from people. However, staff we spoke with mostly felt staffing levels had improved and said the current staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Observations during the inspection assured us there were enough staff deployed. For example, we observed staff spending time with people and did not appear to be rushed. This meant people's needs were met in a timely way. Records showed the provider monitored and reviewed staffing according to people’s changing needs.

Staff received supervision to support their ongoing development in their roles. When necessary, the registered manager had implemented performance management procedures.

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 had been trained in infection prevention and control. They told us there was always enough personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons and described the procedures for using it. Staff knew what to do in the event of an infection outbreak at the service.

There were effective processes to prevent and control infection. Cleaning schedules were in place and equipment was cleaned regularly. Regular audits took place to oversee the cleanliness and safety of the environment. There were appropriate clinical waste facilities and colour coded cleaning materials.

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’s medicines, including controlled drugs, were managed so that they received them safely. There were procedures and records in place and staff demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the processes.

Medical professionals carried out reviews of people’s medicines every 6 months or sooner if required. This meant people were not receiving medication that was not effectively meeting their needs.

Regular audits of medicines management were carried out both internally and by external agencies. Following a medicines error, the registered manager had notified relevant agencies and raised a safeguarding alert. An investigation and medicines review were carried out and a reflective practice session held with staff.