Whyke Lodge

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

The provider’s systems supported learning from incidents and accidents. Staff understood their responsibility to record and report incidents when they occurred. Management oversight was effective in identifying and addressing shortfalls to prevent further incidents. For example, a person with dementia had left the service unaccompanied by staff. This put them at risk of harm. Staff took appropriate actions to report the incident quickly and the person was found safely. Following this incident the registered manager undertook a comprehensive review of the incident including the security of the building and the person’s individual needs. Additional support was put in place to ensure a similar incident did not happen again. The provider recognised shortfalls that led to the incident and apologised to the person and their family in line with the duty of candour. Staff described how learning from incidents had improved their practice. One staff member said, “We (staff) discuss any incidents and accidents and changes to care plans. We talk about ideas and how to do things better.”

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.

The provider’s systems were effective in supporting people when they were admitted to the service and when they moved to other services. For example, one person needed to go to hospital for an operation. Their relative described how staff communicated effectively with the hospital and the family to ensure support was appropriate for the person’s needs when they returned following the operation. They said, “The staff communicated very well, followed things up so we didn’t have to, and generally dealt with everything.”

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 living at Whyke Lodge. One person said, “I’m safe here because the staff look after us very well.” Relatives were consistent in their views that people were safe. One relative told us they believed their relation was safe, and said, “I have never had any concerns about other residents when I am visiting either, they all look very well cared for.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities for safeguarding people. They were able to explain how they would recognise signs of abuse and what they would do. One staff member said, “I would record what I had seen and report to the manager straight away.” Records showed how staff had reported concerns and the registered manager had taken appropriate actions, including reporting a potential safeguarding incident to the local authority in line with local safeguarding policy and procedures.

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.

Risks to people’s health, safety and well-being were managed effectively. Risks were assessed and care plans provided guidance for staff in how to support people safely and in the way they preferred. Some people were at risk of falls and risk assessments identified the level of support they needed when moving around. Some people had sensor mats in place to alert staff when they moved around. We observed staff were quick to respond when the sensor mat was activated so the person was given the support they needed to move safely.

Some people had risks associated with their health needs. Risk assessments were in place and had been regularly reviewed and updated when people’s needs changed. For example, a person had diabetes, and their risk assessment included signs and symptoms that might indicate a change in their blood sugar levels. This meant staff had the information they needed to support the person and seek medical attention when necessary. When the person’s diabetic status had changed and they were prescribed a different medication, their risk assessment and care plan had been reviewed and updated to reflect this change.

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.

Some people were able to walk around unaided, including using the stairs. The provider had not assessed risks associated with falls for all stairways. This was discussed with the registered manager on the day of the assessment. They took immediate actions to ensure this risk was mitigated.

Other environmental risks were assessed, monitored and managed. The provider used technology to support people who were at risk of falls, including sensor mats to alert staff when people were moving around. Safety checks for equipment to support people with moving safely were in place and had been completed consistently.

Fire safety checks were undertaken regularly. People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP) in place to identify the support they needed. Staff had received training in what to do in the event of an emergency, including regular fire drills to enable staff to practice evacuation procedures.

Systems for monitoring risks associated with Legionella were thorough and had been completed regularly.

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 and their relatives told us there were enough staff to support people. One relative said, “There is a continuity of staff and there are plenty of them.” Our observations were that staff were deployed effectively to support people’s needs, and we noted that people did not have to wait for their needs to be met. A relative told us, “There is always someone(staff) there to help if needed straight away.” Staff said there were enough staff to provide safe and effective care. One staff member said, “I really enjoy this work it feels like a proper home here. We have time to talk to the residents and can do the job properly because we have enough staff to not be rushing.”

Staff told us they felt well supported and had received regular training appropriate for their roles. Records showed staff were supported with supervision meetings and appraisals to assess their performance and identify training needs. There was a comprehensive training programme and this was adjusted to include training relevant to individual people’s needs. For example, staff told us stoma training had been included because some people needed support with stoma care.

The provider had safe recruitment systems in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with people.

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.

Systems to support the prevention and control of infection were robust. The service was clean and tidy throughout. People and their relatives confirmed their rooms were regularly cleaned. One person said, “It’s spotless, and always smells nice.” Staff had received training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of using personal protective equipment (PPE) and following safe IPC systems. We observed PPE was available for staff around the service and we observed staff were using this appropriately.

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 were receiving their medicines safely from staff who were trained and had been assessed as safe to administer medicines. We observed a member of staff administering medicines to people. They followed safe practice in line with NICE guidance and supported people in a personalised way. The staff member was knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences. For example, we noted how they offered people their medication in different ways according to their needs and wishes. One person liked to have the tablets put into their mouth on a spoon, another preferred to have them put into their hand first.

Medication Administration Record (MAR) charts were consistently completed. Some people were prescribed PRN or “as required” medicines. There were clear protocols in place to provider staff with guidance about when and how these medicines should be administered. Risk assessments included reference to medicines including, for example, the increased risk of injury associated with anticoagulant medicines.