Spring Tree Rest 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

There was a positive learning culture across the service which meant people received high quality care anwhere people protected from the risk of harm and abuse. People's risks were managed safely and in the most effective way as staff knew people’s needs well. The environment was clean and there were good infection control processes in place. There were enough staff who had been recruited following robust processes and who had been trained to safely meet people’s needs. During our assessment of this key question, we identified an issue with a medication which had not been administered as prescribed. This was related to the ordering process and on this occasion, a lack of communication from staff. This was brought to the attention of the manager who took the most appropriate actions to address this issue, ensuring no one had come to any 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.

People said they felt safe living at Spring Tree Rest Home knowing concerns would be listened to and acted upon. One person said, “I feel totally safe here, there are always staff around. I know to speak to the staff if I have any problems, but I haven’t needed to.”

Staff knew how to report concerns and told us they were confident any issues would be responded to in an appropriate way. Lessons learned were shared with staff to enable them to continue to care for people in a safe and effective way. Leaders led with integrity and ensured the culture of openness was embedded throughout the service.

There was a proactive culture of safety demonstrated across the service. Processes in place ensured the risk of any unsafe practices were mitigated. Staff reported accidents and incidents as they occurred and there were opportunities for learning and improvements for staff to mitigate the risk of incidences reoccurring.

People told us they were able to access to services as needed and were able to speak with staff to ensure their needs and wishes were understood.

People received care which was assessed, planned and delivered in an effective and consistent way by a staff team who worked consistently well together.

The views and opinions of other relevant professionals and partners were actively sought and acted upon to provide good outcomes for people. There had been positive comments received from partners working alongside the service.

Information was shared with people, staff and partners to ensure people’s care needs were effectively met. There was a culture of shared learning and improvement which continued to be embedded across the service.

People and relative’s comments reflected how safe they felt living at Spring Tree Rest Home. One person said, “I feel safe here, nothing worries me.” A relative said, “I have no worries. [Relative] tells me how they feel safe and they have never complained.”

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to concerns of abuse and told us what actions they would take to ensure people were kept safe. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how and where to access safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff understood about the importance of consent and choice and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

During the on-site inspection, we observed staff treating people in a way which demonstrated kindness and compassion. We observed warm interactions where people clearly felt at ease and comforted.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from abuse and harm. Staff reported safeguarding concerns, and learning was taken from incidences which had occurred to improve processes going forward.

People’s risks were assessed and managed well. One person said, I am independent but need help in the shower. Staff always ask me and follow the processes the home have in place.” People’s care plans addressed individual’s risks and issued guidance for staff on how best to support people.

Staff knew about people’s needs and risk well and were able to tell us how they supported people in the most appropriate and relevant way. Staff were able to access additional guidance in order to support people, such as through care plans and seeking additional advice from management and other professionals.

We observed staff supporting people to manage risk. For example, we witnessed staff supporting someone to transfer from a chair into a hoist and then into a wheelchair. The transfer was executed in line with the person’s care plan and risk assessment and staff spoke with the person continuously to offer reassurance.

Care plans contained information about people’s specific needs in line with people’s wishes and choices and to promote safety. The management team had processes in place to ensure they had oversight of people’s risks and to ensure these were being managed as required.

People told us they had no concerns about the environment and felt safe and well cared for. People had equipment in place to support them with their care needs and these were maintained as needed to ensure continued safety of use.

Equipment and technology had been assessed and maintained for safe use enabling staff to work safely and competently in the environment. The management had taken all reasonable steps to control risks in the environment.

There were mechanisms in place which promoted the safety of the environment. For example, there were signs which alerted people to fire exits and there were signs informing people areas had been cleaned to mitigate the risk of an accident occurring.

Relevant and detailed records were kept to upkeep and maintain the safety of the environment. There was a designated member of staff who had responsibility for ensuring environmental processes and policies in place were up to date.

People told us they received support as they needed it and were not left waiting for support. One person said, “There are always staff around.” Relatives said, “I visit twice a week and there are always enough staff on duty” and “I think there are always enough staff on duty and they are the same staff mostly.”

Staff told us they felt there were enough staff to support people safely and effectively. One staff member said, “There are enough staff. Sometimes staff ring in sick but we all work together well and get along.” Another staff member said, “I had an induction when I came and I have on-going training. We learned about people's preferences and basic fundamental care.” The manager and deputy manager supported staff with aspects of care as needed and spoke proudly about the staff. The deputy manager said, “The staff are so good. Some of them have been here a while now so know people well and they are all very supportive towards one another.”

We did not observe people waiting to receive care and support and staff were attentive and knowledgeable about people’s needs and wishes. Staff were seen responding to people’s requests affording them patience and dignity.

The management team ensured staff were recruited safely, and fully trained before supporting people. Records reflected staff received regular supervision and appraisals to enable staff to discuss and enhance their personal and professional development.

People were assured they were being cared for in the safest way as they could see staff wearing appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). One person said, “The staff always wear gloves and aprons.”

Staff told us about their IPC training and how this mitigated the risk of infection. Staff were aware of how to keep people safe in line with best practice guidance.

Staff were observed wearing PPE at the correct times and the home was visibly clean and free from malodour.

There were effective IPC measures in place to keep people safe and there were policies and procedures which staff were able to access. Management undertook audits and spot checks of practices to ensure policies were being adhered to.

People mostly received their medicines on time and as prescribed. The people and relatives we spoke with did not raise any concerns about medication processes.

Staff were trained in the safe management of medicines before being able to administer and support people with their medicine. However, some of the processes in place to effectively monitor medicines errors needed improving as an error in communication meant one person did not have enough of their medication in stock and therefore did not have this administered. The manager remedied this ensuring no one had come to harm and responded to our feedback to make immediate improvements.

There were policies and procedures in place for safely managing medicines. However, we identified one medication was out of stock for one person and this had not been communicated effectively between staff and management to enable more medication to be ordered in a timely way. This meant the opportunity to identify potential risks associated with this were not identified immediately. The manager liaised with the GP and pharmacy to address the way medicines were ordered and recorded and this was communicated with staff to reduce the risk of this happening again. Medicines audits were completed to help ensure medicines were managed safely although these needed to be more detailed to enable themes and trends to be identified and prevented.