7 Eworth Close

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.

Incidents were responded to quickly and investigated thoroughly. We saw learning took place following incidents to improve practice. There was a log of safeguarding incidents to enable managers to identify themes and trends and learn from these.

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.

For example, one person had recently required a hospital visit. The person was supported to access this service effectively with support from the manager. The manager told us a member of staff would stay with a person if they were admitted to hospital if they did not have a family member to support them.

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 told us they felt safe and relatives had no safeguarding concerns. There was a detailed safeguarding policy in place and posters around the service outlining steps to take if staff identified a safeguarding concern. Records demonstrated safeguarding incidents were thoroughly investigated and reported where appropriate.

People had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place or applied for where appropriate. One person had a condition on their DoLS to ensure a mental capacity assessment and best interest decision needed to be completed for finances. This was not in place at the time of the assessment, however the manager was already aware of this and had plans to put this in place.

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.

We saw people were supported to ‘positive risk-take’. This meant people were not restricted unnecessarily due to perceived risks. For example, one person’s care plan stated, ‘Activities should not be discouraged because they are too risky, they should be fully assessed.” We also saw that discussions had taken place with people in relation to safe sex and relationships.

Risks had been assessed in areas such as falling downstairs, road traffic accidents, safeguarding and finances. However, some of these risk assessments were not person centred and appeared to be the same risk assessment but for different people. Additionally, one person was at risk of choking however there was no risk assessment in place for this. We raised this with the manager.

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

There were no health and safety concerns identified during our visit to the service. Staff completed regular health and safety checks to ensure compliance. We saw health and safety certificates were in place to check equipment was working effectively, such as electrical safety checks and fire safety equipment checks.

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.

People spoke positively about the staff supporting them and felt there were enough staff to enable them to do the things they wanted to do. Staff were recruited safely and received a range of training relevant to people’s needs, however one staff felt they would benefit from refresher training and we saw some training courses had expired. We raised this with the manager. Staff told us they felt adequately supported and received regular supervisions. Comments from staff included, “I definitely feel supported” and “We have supervisions, [manager] does these, but a lot of stuff is covered on a day-to-day basis.” Staff told us they worked well as a team.

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 service was exceptionally clean during our visit to the service. Cleaning schedules and audits were in place to ensure all areas of the service were cleaned regularly. People were also supported to clean their own bedrooms.

The manager explained how they prevented any outbreaks due to stringent infection control measures. One relative told us how well the service coped during the Covid pandemic. They commented, “I would like it noted that the care provided during Covid went above and beyond anything that could be expected to keep the residents safe. It was outstanding what the staff did and the sacrifices they made.”

A staff member we spoke with also supported this. They told us, “When [person] got Covid, [manager] came in and provided all the personal care to [person]. She made sure all plates and cups were washed separately. [Manager] is amazing.”

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe.

Medicines were not always managed safely. Best practice guidelines state medicines should not be stored at temperatures exceeding 25 degrees. However, the temperature of the medicine’s cupboard was not checked daily. This meant the provider could not be assured medicines were safe to use. The manager told us they would ensure these temperatures were checked daily going forward.

Additionally, medicine cupboards were not always effectively locked. For example, one medicines cupboard had a key in during our site visit, and another medicine cabinet key was left inside another unlocked cupboard. This meant these medicines were not secure and there was a risk of unauthorised access. We raised this with the manager and by our second site visit this had been rectified and medicines were stored securely. We found no evidence that people had been harmed following these shortfalls.

However, people received their medicines as prescribed. People had care plans for the administration of medicines, detailing how people liked to take their medicines. Staff told us there was always enough stock of medicines and there was an effective process in place for the ordering and returning of medicines. Staff ensured people were not overmedicated in line with best practice guidelines.