South Quay Care Home

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

This key question was previously rated good. This key question remains 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 registered manager ensured they made changes and improvements when there were errors or incidents. They oversaw weekly meetings which analysed incidents and accidents.

Policies and procedures were informed by good practice based on, amongst other sources of information, national safety advice/guidelines.

The registered manager was responsive and acted promptly to our feedback where there had been a previous complaint. They acted on our feedback promptly and were committed to continue learning from incidents.

The registered manager worked well with external partners to review practice on an ongoing basis, and seek additional support, to aid learning from incidents, patterns or trends. One external professional said, “They have reached out for additional training when they identified the need for it.”

The provider worked with people, relatives and a range of partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. Safety was managed, monitored and assured by the registered manager and leaders. There was a continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People raised no concerns about their safety and relatives gave positive feedback about how confident they were in the service. They described being able to raise issues if they needed to.

One person said, “I always feel safe when they use the hoist.” Relatives we spoke with felt at ease leaving their loved ones, as they had confidence they would be safe.

External partners confirmed the registered manager reported incidents in a timely way and worked openly with them to resolve issues and reduce risks. One said, “The team are good at reporting what they need to.” Another said, “South Quay have been proactive in reporting any incidents such as falls.”

Safeguarding policies and procedures were up to date, accessible and in line with good safeguarding practices

One specific area of risk assessment needed improvement, which the registered manager acted on promptly. This was regarding how staff determined the right kind of mattress people used. Records relating to wound management also needed minor improvement in terms of their accessibility. The registered manager improved this process quickly and demonstrated that the approach to skin integrity across the service was effective and safe in terms of improved outcomes for people.

People and their relatives did not raise any concerns about the management of risk. They felt involved in care planning and the measures in place to reduce risks. One person said, “The care is good because they know me well. I have my ups and downs but they know what to do.”

External partners gave positive feedback. They recognised the openness and proactive approach of the registered manager in finding ways to reduce risks. One said, “They are quick to carry out pre-admission assessments, which helps them manage risks.”

Care records regarding people’s risks and needs were detailed and person-centred. This meant risks were clearly set out for staff, for instance in relation to heightened risks for people with diabetes, or at risk of falling.

The provider planned to move to an electronic medicines administration system, which would make the identification of errors easier and more efficient. They had planned in sufficient time for training and roll out of the system, to ensure it gave them the best opportunity to bring about a reduction in risks.

The registered manager ensured they made changes and improvements when there were errors or incidents. They oversaw weekly meetings which analysed incidents and accidents.

Policies and procedures were informed by good practice based on, amongst other sources of information, national safety advice/guidelines.

The registered manager was responsive and acted promptly to our feedback where there had been a previous complaint. They acted on our feedback promptly and were committed to continue learning from incidents.

The registered manager worked well with external partners to review practice on an ongoing basis, and seek additional support, to aid learning from incidents, patterns or trends. One external professional said, “They have reached out for additional training when they identified the need for it.”

People felt there were always sufficient staff to meet their needs. We observed staff responding quickly to people’s needs and reacting to call bells. One person said, “I wouldn’t want to move anywhere – there is always some around to rely on.”

One external professional told us, “Staffing never seems to be an issue when I visit, and I have confidence in the levels of staff competence.” Another said, “It is always calm like this and there is always someone around with knowledge of the person.”

The staff team was a combination of experienced staff who had been at the service for a number of years, and some relatively new staff. The provider’s approach to the hiring of overseas nurses needed refinement. It needed to have a greater emphasis on exploring how nurses from other cultures or backgrounds would meet the challenges of a nursing home environment in the UK.

The provider ensured there were a range of appropriate pre-employment checks and new staff went through an induction, which included face to face and online training. The registered manager worked hard to ensure newly recruited staff had enough support to grow in confidence and competence.

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 ensured that medicines administration was safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. The provider ensured people were enabled to be involved in planning and review of medicinal needs, including when changes happened. Staff liaised well with external partners, including GPs.