South Cary 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 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 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.

Learning was consistently shared with staff during handovers, 1:1 supervisions and team meetings. The manager had a tracker for incidents and accidents and carried out analysis to identify trends and prevent recurrence. For example, 1 person at risk of falls was supported with creation of prompt cards to act as a reminder to use their call bell. Another person who became anxious in the evening was being supported to have their activities later in the day and was reported to be more settled. This meant staff were continuously improving outcomes for people.

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.

People were safely admitted to the home. Managers completed preadmission assessments which included liaising with health care professionals to obtain medical histories. Relatives were involved in admissions processes. One relative told us, “It was absolutely brilliant [admissions process]. It’s far better than where she was before, the staff are just fantastic.”

Information about people’s needs was promptly shared amongst the team, including dietary requirements. One staff member told us that when people moved in a, “Summary of their needs is written up.” Processes were in place to ensure key information about people’s needs was available. For example, during hospital admissions. This meant people received safe care and treatment when they moved between services.

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 living at South Cary House were safe. One person told us, “I’ve been treated very well.” People’s relatives told us they felt the home was safe and knew who they could raise concerns with. One relative told us, “My relative is in safe hands” and another said, “I can go to [managers] I’ve got to know them all quite well over the years.”

Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew how to spot abuse and neglect. One staff member told us, “I know about safeguarding and would report it if I saw someone at risk.” Staff felt that safety concerns were investigated by managers. For example, when staff raised concerns about 1 person’s appearance, prompt and appropriate actions were taken by managers.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations had been applied for. Authorisations were requested where certain restrictions were required to keep people safe from harm. The manager kept a record of DoLS authorisations. This meant people’s liberty was considered promoting safe care that respected their human rights.

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’s care records had specific risk assessments in place. This included guidance for staff to mitigate risks to people. For example, some people at risk of falls required assistance to use the lift to access different floors. Where people wanted to self-medicate, appropriate risk assessments and checks were in place. This enabled people to have control over their care and treatment.

Staff worked with people and their relatives to review and mitigate risks. Two people were in the process of moving to the ground floor as their needs have changed. This meant risks to people were monitored and addressed.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

During our visits we observed some hot pipes were exposed, placing people at risk of harm. This was not identified through internal checks. However, the manager immediately acted on our feedback to address this safety issue.

On day 1 of the assessment the laundry room which contained hazardous cleaning products was not locked due to an issue with the keypad. This was a risk to people. The manager immediately addressed this.

Regular health and safety checks were carried out. Staff were able to raise maintenance issues. There was an internal maintenance team who completed prompt repairs. The provider contracted a fire safety assessment which was carried out in January 2026. Some of the actions were overdue. However, the manager assured us there were plans to address these shortfalls including booking external contractors and using the internal maintenance team.

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.

There were enough skilled staff to provide safe care to people. We observed staff responding to people promptly. People and their relatives were positive about staff. One person told us, “There are enough staff.” One relative told us, “It’s a lovely caring home. Staff are lovely and mums happy there as well that’s the main thing.”

Staff completed training relevant to their roles. Staff spoke positively about training opportunities, 1 staff member told us, “They’re [managers] always encouraging us to do more training.” This meant people received timely support from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

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.

During our visit we observed the home was clean throughout with no malodours present. Staff had access to cleaning products and personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff received training in food safety and infection control. This helped to minimise risks to people.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed by their GP. One person told us, “They [staff] stay and watch you take it.” Important information about people’s needs and preferences were recorded and accessible. People and their relatives were involved in decisions relating to medicines. One relative told us, “They [staff] always say if there’s a change in medication.”

Risk assessments were in place for high-risk medicines, such as anticoagulants. However, these were overdue for a review and needed to contain more person specific information. The manager told us they would review this.

Staff received medicines training and had their competency checked. Staff had access to the medicines policy. Staff felt they had enough time to safely administer medicines. One staff member told us, “There is no pressure, I do not feel rushed when handing out medication to residents.”