Hazelwood 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. The rating has improved from requires improvement to good during this assessment. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. The provider had taken action to ensure appropriate risk assessments were in place and medicine records were in place.

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.

A system was in place to report, record and monitor incidents and accidents to help support people safely. We looked at a sample of incidents/accidents recorded. These detailed the nature of the incident/accident, immediate actions taken, the outcome and follow up actions taken. The registered manager reviewed these and looked for themes and trends to help make improvements and reduce incidents and accidents from reoccurring.

People told us they were able to openly speak with staff and management. They were aware of the complaints process and told us they wouldn’t hesitate to raise concerns.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, where safety was managed and monitored effectively. Information was obtained from people, and others involved in their care, about their needs and risks to their safety and used to develop individualised care and risk management plans for them. This helped ensure people received safe and appropriate care and support.

Staff knew how to safely support people to access other services effectively and the provider had good links with other professionals.

Staff spoke confidently about the processes to report concerns and raise issues about people’s safety. They were also confident their concerns would be listened to and acted upon by management.

People told us they were safe in the presence of care staff and in the home. When asked if they felt safe, a person said, “Yes, I am treated well.”

Safeguarding procedures were in place. These provided guidance about the action to take if staff had concerns about the welfare of people.

Staff had appropriate training in safeguarding people from abuse and were aware of actions to take to safeguard people. The registered manager had good knowledge of safeguarding and reporting procedures. There was a system in place for recording safeguarding concerns which helped management have oversight over this. The registered manager had appropriately made safeguarding referrals.

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and comprehensive risk assessments were in place. Since the previous inspection, the provider had reviewed all risk assessments and implemented new format risk assessments. These included comprehensive detail about how staff should support people to help minimise the associated risk. These included personalised information and had been regularly reviewed and updated.

Staff received training in areas of potential risk such as manual handling, first aid and health and safety.

Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPS) had been completed for each person. PEEPS gave staff or the emergency services detailed instructions about the level of support a person would require in an emergency such as a fire evacuation.

On the day of the site visit, we observed people were supported and cared for in a safe way. Staff explained what they were doing, encouraged people to make choices in their preferred communication method and did not rush them.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They helped ensure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. There were systems in place to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises. Regular checks were completed by the provider to help make sure the environment and equipment was safe for people to use.

Processes were in place to help ensure risks within the environment were assessed and monitored. There were regular checks and a maintenance system to help ensure the home remained a safe place to live. Regular checks on appliances and equipment and checks on safety items such as window restrictors were carried out.

Fire drills and regular fire alarm tests had been carried out and were recorded appropriately. The registered manager confirmed that since the last inspection they had renovated areas of the home and this was ongoing.

People we spoke with told us there were sufficient staff and they had confidence in their knowledge and skills. We observed staff were attentive and responsive when people required care and support. On the day of our site visit, we found there were sufficient staffing numbers and staff were not rushed. Staff were able to spend time interacting with people.

Policies and procedures were in place to help ensure staff recruited were assessed as safe to work with people. Checks on the suitability of potential staff were completed. This included obtaining references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and help prevent unsuitable people from working in care services. We were assured that there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The staffing rota indicated that there were sufficient permanent staff working at the home to cover planned and unplanned staff absences.

People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills required to effectively meet their needs. Records showed that staff had received training in areas relevant to their roles. Staff received supervision sessions which provided an opportunity for them to discuss their performance and professional development.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. The provider had policies and procedures regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) and had systems in place to monitor practice. There were arrangements to help make sure the environment was cleaned at regular intervals. Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately and when required.

We saw no issues with cleanliness or infection control during our site visit. The home environment was clean and well maintained.

Medicines were managed safely in the home. The provider had made improvements since the last inspection in respect of records relating to prescribed PRN (as required) medicines. They had clear protocols for staff on when and how to administer PRN medicines.

People’s medicines support needs were clearly documented in their care plan. Care staff recorded medicines administration on paper Medicine Administration Records (MARs). We viewed a sample of MARs and found these were completed fully indicating that medicines prescribed had been administered appropriately.

At the time of the site visit, the home had a controlled drugs cabinet, but this was not appropriately attached to the wall. We raised this with the registered manager who took action and addressed the issue.

Staff received training in administering medicines and their practice and competence was assessed to help ensure they had the skills and knowledge to do so.