Bassingham Care Centre

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 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

Staff understood how to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns and received training about to do this. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately with other professionals such as the local authority safeguarding team.

People told us they felt safe living at Bassingham Care Centre. One person said, “At my age I need to feel safe and I do here.” Another person said, “I’m very safe, the staff make sure of that.”

Relatives felt their loved ones were kept safe. They shared comments such as, “Absolutely safe and no concerns.”

The provider did not consistently work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff lacked information to ensure they provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were in place; however, the quality of assessments varied. Some assessments were detailed and person-centred, while others lacked sufficient information to guide staff effectively in managing risks. For example, risks associated with poor nutrition and swallowing difficulties had been identified for a person and a modified diet had been provided. However, there was no clear documentary evidence to show support from services such as Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) or a GP had been sought to ensure the management plan put in place by staff met the person’s needs. During the inspection the provider took action to address this issue.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment and facilities supported the delivery of safe care. The provider had developed an action plan to address the environmental concerns they had identified. However, some concerns such as a broken radiator cover, poor storage of maintenance equipment, and safety concerns in stairwells had not been prioritised. These posed significant risks to people, for example those living with dementia, who may have impaired judgement, perception or mobility. Action was taken during the inspection to resolve these issues. General decoration and upkeep across the service were also in need of attention to ensure a safe and comfortable environment for people to live in. Work to address these issues had commenced prior to the inspection.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

Staffing levels in the main house were sufficient to meet people’s needs. However, staffing levels in the bungalows area were not always adequate. The layout of the environment and people’s individual needs had not always been considered. At times only 2 staff were available to support people. When both staff members were occupied with providing support in a bungalow, there was no capacity to respond to other people’s requests or needs. This may pose a risk to timely care and support. During the inspection the provider increased the staffing levels in the bungalows area to ensure everyone was able to access timely support.

Staff received regular training in key areas such as moving and handling, infection control, and medication administration. In specific instances, care staff used a nationally recognised system to estimate weight loss. However, there was no evidence to show staff had received training about how to carry out or interpret results in the right way.

People had confidence in staff’s ability to care for them safely. A person told us, “They know what they’re doing, there are very good.” Relatives told us they felt staff had the knowledge and experience to care for their loved ones. One relative said, “They are good, from what I have seen they know what to do.”

Recruitment files reviewed showed that pre-employment checks were completed in line with regulatory requirements, including DBS checks and references.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider did not always make sure the management of medicines records was in line with best practice.

People received their medicines as prescribed and in the ways they wanted to take them. This included medicines they only needed at certain times such as pain relief and those which required special storage and recording arrangements.

Administration records of medicines prescribed in advance, particularly for people nearing the end of their life, were stored in a loose-leaf file, separate from the main medicine administration records. While there was no discernible impact for people and staff were able to locate and explain these records, this approach may have posed a risk to continuity and oversight. In addition, the controlled medicines register did not contain an index page which, again, may have posed a risk to continuity and oversight. The provider took immediate action to address these issues.

The provider had identified an air conditioning unit was required in the medicines room to help maintain appropriate storage temperatures, particularly during warmer months. This was in the process of being installed. Additionally, the provider had identified issues with the supply of medicines to the service and was in the process of changing their supplier to improve efficiency and reliability.